Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:59:05 +0000
This is just freakin’ unbelievable.
Do you know why we have the mess we now have about Obama’s birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility to be president?
It’s because the great United States of America, supposedly governed by the Rule of Law, has no law or regulation at the federal or state level requiring government to vet presidential candidates! (Umm, what about the U.S. Constitution? Isn’t the Constitution the highest law of the land? Doesn’t the Constitution specify that a president must be a “natural born citizen”?)
This was admitted by the Congressional Research Office in a memo meant for internal circulation, not to be seen by We the People. That was why nobody in Congress or the federal government or the state governments tried to ascertain Obama’s eligibility. And that’s why judge after judge has tossed out lawsuit after lawsuit challenging The Fraud’s eligibility.
When the newly elected members to the House of Representatives take their seats in the new year, their first order of business should be the drafting of a new law requiring Congress to thoroughly determine the eligibility — according to the United States Constitution — of all presidential candidates. As should the legislatures of each of our 50 state governments!
Is it too late in Obama’s case?
The answer is a resounding “No!!!”
Judges do have the discretionary authority and power to request that he produce documentary evidence of his eligibility. All we need is one good judge. Sadly, none has come forth thus far….
A big h/t to most beloved fellow Tina.
By Jerome R. Corsi – WorldNetDaily – Nov 8, 2010
A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day. It’s because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.
The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.
Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.
The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and members of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate.
It first appeared on a blog posted by Mario Apuzzo, who has pending before the U.S. Supreme Court a request to hear a case claiming Congress and others failed to abide by the Constitution when they refused to investigate Obama’s eligibility. He explains the document, which has been posted online, was obtained through the “diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of ‘Tom Deacon,’ who obtained it from a senator’s office.”
Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.”
Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic. He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it. He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet. Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.
The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:
“Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called ‘long’ version of a ‘birth certificate’ from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are ‘vetted’ for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status.”
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.
The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president. It states:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama’s certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look. After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama’s birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.
A screen capture of the document’s first page, including the key second paragraph, confirms the conclusion:
The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others. The relevant paragraph:
“The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access.”
The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates. The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate’s eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.
Once more, the memo makes this plain:
“In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama’s eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: ‘Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,’ and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no ‘ministerial duty’ or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official.”
…What the CRS is saying is that since there was no state law demanding Obama show his birth certificate, the court could not demand he do so. It was entirely up to the California secretary of state who had discretion to ask for the document or not ask for the document, depending upon what the California secretary of state, a Democrat for othis election cycle, wanted to do.
The CRS’s conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it. The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.
“Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only ‘official’ documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama’s eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth.”
The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.
The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.
Read the rest of this WND article HERE.