An Enormous Constitutional Controversy That Refuses to Die
Article Tools
-
1
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
Discussion of what possibly could develop from a qualifications review of someone’s right to the highest Federal government office.
Shockingly, if true, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has declared that he is completely willing to hear evidence, if three other justices concur, as to the constitutional qualifications—or lack thereof—concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s right to be President of the United States of America! It was amazingly reported on the World Net Daily website, as of March 10, 2009, though it is doubtful that anything will come from this issue.
There is, however, an ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. The issue pertains to a legal proceeding regarding a type of case offered, as classified, under the particular title of Quo Warranto. For those interested, they can search out a great deal of related information on the internet and elsewhere regarding the many specifics and particular details, which will not, consequently, be covered here. Not being a lawyer, no attempt will be made whatsoever to supposedly give out with legalistic understandings.
What will be only done in this present article, however, is to give some major considerations as to the possible significant or momentous implications of what such a literally gigantic controversy means; this is regarding American politics and the important notion of constitutionality in general, though pertaining only to the most curious subject at hand, of course.
The entire course of American history could, it can be said, be turned on this single matter if Obama were, in fact, legally declared to have been illegitimately elected to the Office of President of the United States. The extensive and convoluted ramifications and associated complications involved would be, at a minimum, quite enormous to behold, which is saying a great deal just in terms of domestic politics; the international reverberations would be almost equally enormous to observe. It is, thus, yet a true wonderment as to why Justice Scalia would wish to possibly become the center of a potential political storm of such an immense magnitude.
This drastic situation could, therefore, potentially provoke a civil war by two sides coming into existence; there would be, if true, the supporters of the declared usurper versus those who would insist that they are only, solely, among those true patriots who would wish to uphold the Constitution and all that it stands for in terms of the defense of the American republic, social civil liberty, the rule of law, etc.
The above scenario is scary enough, of course; however, the mere fact, as aforementioned, that Justice Scalia had been publicly willing to discuss the very possibility that Obama’s qualifications to hold his office might be somehow discussed, within the context of the highest court in this country, ought to be thought shocking enough to merit a great of deal of appropriate and significantly real attention, at a minimum. Just mentioning this fact that a justice of the US Supreme Court no less had been verbally engaged, in such a controversial matter of a most high importance, ought to lend substantial weight to this matter.
Of course, in any event, it is very highly doubtful that Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, would ever, even in his wildest dreams, entertain doing anything at all about this particular matter. After all, in terms of being “reasonable” and filled with some regard for his own self-interest, if Obama is, thus, not the legitimate President, then, by logical extension, how can Holder hold on to his own job? It is an extremely problematic question or issue, of course, at a minimum.
3 Comments
Barrack Obama is a natural born citizen even if only by the virtue that his mother was. That’s what the Constitution considers a citizen (if your parents were) and their is no federal law defining “natural born citizen” or distinguishing it from just plain citizen.
You know that’s true. People like you are just keeping this story alive for attention and to distract from the things that actually affect normal Americans. And what’s worse, you’re (perhaps deliberately) playing off the basest fears of xenophobic conservatives.
The fact you’re claiming this is a such a hugely important event says a lot about your perspective on politics. Maybe you should devote your passion to something that actually matters, like the issues.
You are welcome to your opinion. Unlike you, I will not question or disrepect your motives. I am not a constitutional scholar.
However, constitutional scholars have raised questions. Also, legal briefs have, in fact, been presented to the US Supreme, as you ought to know since you are so informed.
If Obama is really not hiding anything, he has absolutely nothing to fear. Those raising any legitimate objections can be legally, constitutionally, factually disproved in their contentions. I will await the constitutional processes to see what happens. I am not afraid of the truth.
If he is not eligible for his office (that’s “if”), he is a usurper, which some people, at least, do think is an extremely important issue as regards the US Constitution and maintaining liberty under law for the survival of republican government.
As with the many different court opinions on this matter, what is not said is still highly significant. While the purported certificate on file is said to be “in accordance with state policies and procedures,” there’s no actual or formal affirmation that the document in question truly reflects an actual Hawaiian birth.
In addition, it is highly noteworthy that there is not any cited explanation for the noted particular image of the Hawaii state “certification of live birth” that has, in point of fact,been posted by Obama, which is alleged, on the Internet, to be the document of his Hawaiian birth; however,this is even though Hawaiian procedures, at the time, legally allowed that document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state itself.
An important and forever critical question that, thus, troubles people can be simply put as follows: “Why would an individual with a supposedly verified and fully valid birth certificate also have a “certification of live birth?”
This very enormous and troubling paradox ought, therefore, to be legally and constitutionally resolved before Obama could ever be said to be legitimately the President of the USA.