This article begins a series of discussions on what I would call ‘threshold constitutional issues’. If you look at the definitions of the word threshold, I would adopt this one as the meaning of these series of posts:
a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not
In the spirit in which this blog was created, a threshold issue for our nation is whether our Constitution is being followed. Through research, writing and dialogue, including Constitutional Radio, we completely understand that the Constitution has not been followed for a long time, and has been quite frankly, always under attack. But that will not justify abandoning it. In fact, we have a moral obligation and constitutionally-mandated duty to maintain and restore our Constitutional republic. So here we are.
One of the most significant threshold issues for any nation, and for our nation in particular, is whether the head of state or President is eligible for the office. As Lame Cherry noted a while ago, those who have held this threshold issue up to the light “held the beach at Normandy without reinforcements”, and now have advanced to the field.
The democrats and Obama would have us all believe–if we look at this issue at all– it is just a piece of paper–the birth certificate–and that the concept of “Natural Born Citizen” just means ‘born in the USA’. Those patriots that have held the line on this understand exactly the threshold issue that exits: if our President is ineligible, our country does not exist, and nothing he nor the government does is valid.
Below, cross-posted with permission, is the Birthers viewpoint on the lawsuits regarding the eligibility threshold constitutional question. By chronicling the evolution of these lawsuits, what emerges is the unified concept of natural born citizenship–born in the USA of two U.S. citizen parents. It cannot be any other way for the Commander in Chief of the United States of America unless the Constitution is amended.
The Unseen Hand
©Teo the Bear, The Birthers
People are constantly asking for our opinion about which court case against Obama is the best, or who we think is the best lawyer.
We have stayed away from picking sides for a reason. Every lawyer involved has done this country a service. Every plaintiff from the individuals suing their Secretaries of States, to the individuals and members of the military suing Obama, and to those suing both Obama and Congress for the good of our Nation has the absolute right to be called a patriot.
What we have noticed is that each lawsuit has approached the issue differently, in the beginning there was no case law as how to stop a usurper from causing this constitutional train wreck. The attorneys used their best judgment and no one should play armchair quarterback. What we have noticed is that each new lawsuit either added something new or took a previous case and applied the lessons learned. Through a learning experience, each new lawsuit is becoming stronger and stronger. The disappointments that we all shared in not having a court hear any of the lawsuits were not in vain, because we have learned from our collective experiences.
To be respectful to the courts some decisions given by the courts were vague, while others pointed out that while a candidate, Obama was protected under the first amendment to run within the political process, for he was not yet subject to the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1. Some decisions before the civilian courts were trumped by the application of military law and policies. Other decisions have applied the rules of standing of civil proceedings because the cases were presented as civil proceedings.
We cannot judge the legal talents of these fine and brave attorneys who are risking their careers in our common pursuit of demanding that our Constitution be observed. Attorney Berg concentrated on the issue of the native-born, (birth certificate) and dual citizenship issue but he was denied standing because Obama was still in the political process and not yet in the constitutional process. Leo Donofrio asked a simple question, “how could anyone whose birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 be a natural born citizen.” Dr. Taitz picked upon the native-born (birth certificate) issue and she sought out members of our military thinking, ‘surely, they would have standing.’ Charles Kerchner expanded these arguments to Vattel’s meaning of a natural born citizen and seen that Congress acted improperly during the process of counting the votes of the Electoral College when they failed to open the floor for objections as required by law. His lawsuit also points out that Congress held hearings on McCain’s citizenship but not Obama’s prior to the election.
Attorney Apuzzo has accepted Mr. Kerchner’s case. He looked at the term natural born citizen and concluded that a would-be President must have absolute and sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of his or her birth and that it is only unity of citizenship (the joining of jus soli, or citizenship from the soil, and jus sanguinis, citizenship descended from both parents) that can provide this type of allegiance and loyalty. Attorney Apuzzo also approached the standing issue differently than other attorneys have by arguing that Obama’s and Congress’s actions have caused his clients a loss of liberty and denial of equal protection which gives them standing.
As you can see this is not only a learning experience, but also a refinement of the proper argument the court must answer. The argument has grown from place of birth, to dual citizenship, to the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth and is now defined for the courts to hear and focus all these arguments upon the concept of sole allegiance to the nation by birth and whom the founding fathers thought would exemplify this concept of total loyalty at the moment of their natural birth. The issue of standing has also matured from one citizen asking the courts to stop another citizen from exercising their first amendment rights, to one that now exposes constitutional grounds for standing.
We are trying to decide if a President can owe to foreign sovereigns their loyalties that aught to belong solely to the United States of America at birth or because of dual citizenships. We are also trying to see if Congress is complicit in this deception. All of this plays important factor in structuring the right argument.
The question of standing is very important, we as Americans believe that we as sovereigns of the government have standing. Our Constitution is what created the republican form federal government that we have today. Our proof is in the Constitution, as it clearly starts out with,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There can be nothing more clear and compelling for standing on all constitutional issues as that. It is We the People, who have not simply a legal standing, but a natural standing in matters of constitutional importance. For one moment read those words that start our Constitution again. These words have one meaning and one meaning only, We the people are sovereign and our government is answerable to us.
I think about how the arguments to eligibility that Birthers from all over, have been forming over the past year, and how it changed and moved away from the popular, but incorrect ideas of citizenship and became anchored to the intent of the Founding Fathers, and I think there is a purpose to all this. Our founding fathers wrote a few simple words, that perhaps explains everything about why we have not gotten standing yet. We find these words of explanation at the end of the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes simple words explain the unexplainable, words such as “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” can take the question of standing out of legal hands and seem to place it into unseen hands.
The Supreme Court is going to agree to hear only one case, perhaps two if they are close together and can rule on both in the same session. They know that these issues may cut across a wide section of society and that the Nation cannot go back and forth in uncertainty. They will decide if Barack Hussein Obama, II is President until 2013 on the merits of the case presented to them and not make it into a Ping-Pong match. Imagine that this case only took the position that place of birth was important. The birth certificate becomes not only the primary document, but in essence the only document, and if the lower courts took judicial notice of the Hawaiian COLB through the good faith and credit clause the time going through the appeals process to the Supreme Court could devastate the country leaving a usurper in the Oval Office. What would the appeal process be? Of course it would change from correcting an incorrect definition of a natural born citizen for Article II, Section 1 to that of the changing an incorrect application of the good faith and credit clause. Even take dual citizenship, if presented in an improper argument the court could narrowly rule that unless it was a condition of Birth, it does not affect the status of a natural born citizen. Again the appeals processes is not going to be on the correct definition of a natural born citizen but rather on a previous Supreme Court ruling on allowing dual citizenship for “citizens” in the most generic sense of the word.
I believe it is for an unseen reason that standing has not yet been granted, that it is the unseen hand of Divine Providence protecting this Nation from our own sense of urgency and quietly strengthening one individual on whose shoulders rests the hopes of everyone who believes in a Constitutional republic and not the rule of the unbridled passions of body politic that is too often called democracy.
Perhaps this same unseen hand stopped the earlier lawsuits so the people could run with their passions, as the cry for “change” at any price made many to forget that this Nation is strong and our constitutional protections firm only when we govern ourselves with moral guidance. Did this unseen hand feed us the sweetness of our own egocentric desires, did this unseen hand pour a measure of the intoxicating wine of irresponsibility to the people as they ignored the foundations of our republic, and did this unseen hand do these things because we have forgotten our heritage and our place that Nature’s God put us in to guard against the events of the world that threaten the innocent? Did Nature’s God withdraw the hand of Divine Providence in the foreknowledge that it would come back to protect the Nation at its darkest hour, after the sweetness of desire turned bitter in our stomachs and the intoxication of irresponsibility shows that we have tossed off our clothes of morality only to see ourselves naked? If this is the answer then we with the hands that can be seen should show them joined in prayer to Nature’s God upon whose will Divine Providence is ordained.
My personal hope is that standing will not be given to anyone in the active military for this reason. If they present their case and loose, with todays political climate bordering more like 1929 than 2009 I fear that the military would undergo a purge if the member of the active military was given standing and fell. A purge of those who are truly loyal to the Constitution United States and those people we cannot afford to loose. If we loose them, they will be replaced by those whose allegiance will be to the base and corrupt powers that have long sought to enslave free people. For all our failures as a society in allowing two parties to dominate government, they are the citizens’ last hope of keeping a constitutional republic from turning to a people’s democratic republic without the bloodshed of a civil war. There is no doubt that they are brave men and women, and we do not want those brave souls obeying unlawful orders, and most of all we want them to remember their oath to the Constitution. They know what an unlawful order is. When ordered to turn their weapons on citizens who are only exercising both their God given and constitutionally guaranteed rights, or being ordered to surrender to foreign forces, we have little doubt that they will draw the line in the sand and hold fast to their oath. We will need them more then than now if this current government keeps usurping the power we the people gave them and one day decided to turn the military against us. We need them to fight if this appeasing administration decides that only their human sacrifice will appease our enemies. For this reason, I believe the guiding and unseen hand of that Divine Providence that our Founding Fathers called on so many years ago has not given standing to the actions to date. Perhaps it is we who forgot the need for Divine Providence, and I pray that the Divine Providence that was evoked on that fourth day of July did not forget us.
We cannot forget those patriots who pursue other avenues to protect our Constitution. Those that support the ninth and tenth amendments protecting the rights and powers reserved to the people and states, or those that hold fast to the second amendment as our final insurance against tyranny. Those grandmas and grandpas, the stay at home moms, and the common men and women who give up their day to join their fellow Americans in protests at town hall meetings and Tea Parties across the nation exercising their first amendment rights. All of these are patriots made in the same mould as those who on the morning of April 19th 1775 assembled on Lexington Green and faced the mightiest army in the world at that time. All patriots all endowed by their Creator with an unalienable desire to breath the free air of liberty.
Which is the best lawsuit, who is the best lawyer? Who knows! We are not in Rio de Janeiro where we choose lawyers to cheer for as the citizens there choose soccer teams to support. There politics are discussed freely and without fear, but heaven forbid you say you are for Vasco de Gama while the person you are talking to is for the Flamingos. Do we elevate the lawyers opposing Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency to mere a spectator sport? We find ourselves embroiled in the defense of these legal personalities while we ignore the clear and present danger posed by, as John Jay warned, a “Foreigner” in the Oval Office. To say “I’m for Berg” or “I am for Orly,” or any other lawyer, is to destroy our unity in the common defense of our Constitution. We are not for Berg, Donofrio, Taitz or Apuzzo. we are for the Constitution of the United States, and the attorney whose argument and eloquence before the court ends this national nightmare of uncertainty. We are for those attorneys’ whose commitment to the laws and the rule of law that allows us to remove a usurper from the office of Commander in Chief and can restore confidence to the Nation that is loosing more than confidence, it is loosing hope.
Who ever gets standing what we must do is bow our heads in silent prayer for it is this person that the Divine Providence of Nature’s God has uncovered and, that the argument they present to the courts comes from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let us take comfort that in the unseen assurance that the same Divine Providence that protected our nation throughout the Revolutionary War still waits to protect us if we have the faith to call upon the name of Nature’s God.
Please join us at 2:01 PM Eastern time on Wednesday August 19, 2009 for one moment of silence as we bow our heads across the nation from the eastern most shores of Maine, to the western most island in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska to Nature’s God as we again ask for the protection of Divine Providence.
August 19th is an important date in American history it is the day we fought the final battle of the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Blue Licks, and it is the day that the grande dame of our Navy, the USS Constitution (how much more fitting can that be for those of us that swore allegiance to her namesake) scored our first victory of the second war of independence, the War of 1812, against the British ship the HMS Guerriere and earned her immortal nickname “old ironsides” as the British cannon balls bounced off her hull. The dark side of this day occurred 75 years ago in Germany when the position of the Führer was created by the simple majority of a democratic vote.
At the appointed hour on the August 19, 2009 let us take courage from the deeds of our history and resolve never to allow the dark passions of a desperate world to stain our national soul by believing that any one man or group of men are above the Constitution that empowers them. Let us move forward in our sworn duty, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” to guard our Constitution and our Republic from all enemies both foreign and domestic.