Within hours after Obama affixed his signature to the greatest boondoggle of all time, some twelve state attorneys general filed suit against the law in federal court. To date, the American Legislative Exchange Council estimates that some twenty-four additional states can be expected to follow suit.
The legislation is being challenged under Article VI of the Constitution, which requires members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution;” under 1st Amendment restrictions respecting the establishment of religion; under 4th Amendment limitations regarding illegal searches and seizures; under 5th Amendment prohibitions regarding the taking of property without due process; and under the 9th and 10th Amendments, regarding the enumerated powers of the states and of the people.
Opinion is divided over whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court, most likely the ultimate arbiter, will have the courage to administer blind justice, overturning legislation of this magnitude that is “owned” by a single political party. Although the court is expected to be rigorously apolitical in its deliberations, the justices cannot escape the fact that, should they find Obama’s healthcare reform to be unconstitutional on one or more counts, Democrats and their radical left supporters will claim that it was retribution for his unprecedented humiliation of the court during his recent State of the Union address. Nevertheless, the constitutional principles must be vindicated. The courts must do their job, regardless of public opinion or external political considerations.
However, the constitutional issues outlined above are not the only potentially decisive issues. There remains the issue of Obama’s eligibility to serve in the office he occupies and the viability of legislation that he has signed into law. In arguing that the eligibility question can never be put aside by simply ignoring it, Dr. Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, wrote in December 2008, “the time will come when the Justice Department will attempt to enforce, through criminal prosecutions, some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign into law. Then, ‘as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity,’ a class of litigants with absolute standing will come into existence.”
With the signing of the healthcare bill, that class of litigants now encompasses the entire U.S. population. Accordingly, every American citizen who opposes Obama’s healthcare reform law, and who seriously questions his eligibility to serve, should convey to their state attorney general the specifics of why Obama is ineligible to sign any bill into law. Here are the specifics:
Fact: Barack Hussein Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, hence a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961. This is an undisputed fact, attested to by Obama, himself, on numerous occasions.
Fact: Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, provides as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…” Therefore, it is an inescapable fact that Barack Hussein Obama was born with dual US-British citizenship, “by descent” from his father.
Fact: On December 12, 1963, Kenya won its independence from Great Britain. Chapter VI, Section 87, Subsection 3 of the Constitution of Kenya, reads as follows:
(1) Every persons who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Obama Sr.), or a British protected person, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963. Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya. (Obama’s paternal grandparents were both born in Kenya)
(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a
citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama Jr.), or a British protected
person, shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of
Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
In Obama’s defense it must be understood that, while he did not consciously choose to be either a dual citizen of the U.S. and Great Britain, or a dual citizen of the U.S. and Kenya, those dual citizenships devolved upon him “by descent” from his father and by “automatic operation” of the laws of Great Britain and Kenya.
The significance of this is twofold:
1. Official U.S. State Department policy on dual citizenship is as follows: “The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
“Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship…
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…
“However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country…”
2. It is unthinkable that the Founding Fathers, with the death and destruction of the War of Independence from Great Britain still fresh in their minds, would have submitted a draft Constitution for ratification by the states that would have allowed for the election of a president or a vice president with divided loyalties… conceivably a man with dual US-British citizenship. Hence, the requirement that the president and vice president of the United States must be “natural born” citizens of the United States.
It is an indisputable fact that Barack Hussein Obama, the man who now claims to be President of the United States, held dual US-British citizenship from the date of his birth, August 4, 1961, until December 12, 1963, the date of Kenyan independence from Great Britain, and that he held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until at least his 21st birthday on August 4, 1982. Therefore, under Article II, Section 1(4) of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama cannot lay claim to being a “natural born” U.S. citizen.
And if the attorneys general insist that laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president must meet the constitutional requirements of Article VI, as well as those of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, how can they not insist that the president must also comply with Article II, Section 1(4) of the Constitution. And if it is their contention that some requirements of the Constitution must be adhered to while others may be ignored, perhaps they will honor us with their reasoning.
If thirty-six states file suit to overturn the Democrats’ healthcare reform law, that can only be viewed as a good beginning. We must shoot for all fifty states to file suit. Obamacare cannot be allowed to survive in its present form.
In the meantime, conservatives, Republicans, and independents must do everything in their power to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats in November. And even though Republicans stand a good chance of winning control of both houses of Congress, they have little chance of gaining enough seats to override a veto. They will, however, be in a position to deny funding for the more than one-hundred fifty new bureaucracies envisioned by Obamacare… They will also be in a position to write the kind of healthcare reform legislation that Obama and the Democrats failed to write… legislation that finally goes to the heart of the problem: reducing the excessively high cost of medical care.