By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: \u201cDoes Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?\u201d \u00a0With every reason to believe that he does not, the second most-asked question has been, \u201cHow could every single member of Congress\u2026 all 535 of them\u2026 fail in their constitutional obligation to properly vet Obama\u2019s qualifications before certifying the vote of the 2008 Electoral College?\u201d<\/p>\n
For the past two years Americans have been flooding congressional offices with demands for answers to these questions.\u00a0 And now we know.\u00a0 The answer to the first question is, \u201cNo, Obama is not<\/span> eligible to serve as president because he is not a \u2018natural born\u2019 U.S. citizen.\u201d\u00a0 The answer to the second question is, \u201cThe Jack Maskell Memorandum.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But before we approach the question of who Jack Maskell might be, and the role he plays in what history will doubtless record as the greatest single crime of all time, let\u2019s first review the facts surrounding Obama\u2019s eligibility.\u00a0 Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, \u201cNo person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n We know that Obama was not a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, we know that he was at least thirty-five years of age when he took office in January 2009, and we know that he had been a U.S. resident for at least fourteen years at the time he was nominated.\u00a0 But is he a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen?\u00a0 What is a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, and how do we prevent someone who is not a natural born citizen from becoming president or vice president?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to sign the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.\u00a0 So is it even conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have affixed their signatures to a document that would allow an individual with divided loyalties \u2013 e.g., an individual with dual US-British citizenship \u2013 to serve as president or vice president of the United States?\u00a0 Not likely.<\/p>\n That is precisely why the Framers found it necessary to include the words, \u201cor a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution\u2026\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>At the time the Constitution was adopted, every citizen of the thirteen colonies was a British subject, or a citizen of some other country.\u00a0 And since the founders wished to exclude all those with dual citizenship (divided loyalties) from serving as president or vice president at any time in the future, they provided an exemption of limited duration<\/em> for those who were officially U.S. residents at the time and who might wish to serve as president or vice president after reaching the age of thirty-five.\u00a0<\/p>\n For example, George Washington was 57 years of age when he was inaugurated as our first president.\u00a0 But Washington, born and raised in Virginia, had been a British subject during all of his 57-plus years.\u00a0 Hence, as a means of qualifying a class of men for the presidency during the first thirty-five years of our nationhood, while preventing any man with dual or naturalized citizenship from ever serving as president, after a pool of \u201cnatural born\u201d men had reached the age of thirty-five\u2026 limiting access to those offices only to those born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens\u2026 the founders included the words, \u201cor a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution\u2026\u201d<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Few Americans, not even our distinguished members of Congress, have ever stopped to consider what those sixteen simple words mean, or, more importantly, who they exclude<\/em> from presidential consideration.\u00a0 That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker\u2019s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object\u2026 preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In the days immediately following Barack Obama\u2019s unlikely election in November 2008, members of Congress began flooding the CRS with questions about Obama\u2019s eligibility.\u00a0 Jack Maskell, a CRS Legislative Attorney drew the \u201cshort straw\u201d and was assigned to provide members of Congress with legal cover.\u00a0 Maskell\u2019s recently-discovered memorandum, dated April 3, 2009 and distributed to all members of Congress, contains the following words:<\/p>\n \u201cMany of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called \u2018long\u2019 version of a \u2018birth certificate\u2019 from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are \u2018vetted\u2019 for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cConcerning 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.\u00a0 Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that \u2018vets\u2019 candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n Clearly, Mr. Maskell overlooked the words of the 20th<\/sup> Amendment, which reads in part, \u201cIf a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n When members of Congress swear that they will \u201csupport and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,\u201d and that they will \u201cbear true faith and allegiance to the same\u2026 so help me God,\u201d they take upon themselves, by direct implication, the obligation to rule on the qualifications of those who emerge from the Electoral College as President and Vice President-elect\u2026 in spite of what Jack Maskell\u2019s opinion might be.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under the U.S. system for selecting our president and vice president, there are three distinct vetting opportunities.\u00a0 The first occurs when the political parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed.\u00a0 And although it is customary for the parties to certify the eligibility of their candidates under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Democratic Party made that certification in 2008 only to the State of Hawaii, which has a statutory requirement that such certification be made.\u00a0 The remaining 49 states received no such certification in support of the eligibility of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.<\/p>\n The second vetting opportunity occurs when the members of the Electoral College meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December.\u00a0 It is the obligation of all members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for individuals who are qualified, under Article II, Section 1. However, in spite of the clear knowledge that Obama had been born in 1961 with dual US-British citizenship, Democratic electors in December 2008 ignored that solemn responsibility.\u00a0<\/p>\n The third and final vetting opportunity occurs during the first week in January following a presidential election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College.\u00a0 It is the third and final fail-safe vetting opportunity.<\/p>\n So the question arises, can the Congress simply ignore its obligation to fully vet those selected as president and vice president-elect by the Electoral College?\u00a0 The answer to that question, in spite of Jack Maskell\u2019s advice to Congress, is a resounding \u201cno.\u201d\u00a0 As Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues, \u201c\u2026 the question of Obama\u2019s eligibility vel non<\/em> is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient\u2026\u00a0 Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be \u2018a natural born citizen,\u2019 by simply assuming<\/em> that he is such\u2026\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But what if the members of Congress, on the advice of CRS counsel, fail in that responsibility?\u00a0 Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen\u2026 \u201cthe matter cannot be said to have been settled to a \u2018constitutional sufficiency\u2019 <\/em>(emphasis added),\u201d<\/em> because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement\u2026 Maskell memorandum or no Maskell memorandum.<\/p>\n When we consider the difficulties involved in reversing the effects of two years or four years of an illegitimate presidency, it is difficult to imagine any single written document in recorded history that has had, or will have, the devastating effect on freedom and the rule of law that the Jack Maskell Memorandum will ultimately have.\u00a0 When Maskell drafted his memorandum and affixed his signature, it is unlikely that he had any concept of the terrible consequences of his words.\u00a0 If only he had folded it into a paper airplane and tossed it out the window\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By far the most frequently asked question in America since August 28, 2008, the closing day of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, is this: \u201cDoes Barack Hussein Obama meet the constitutional qualifications to serve as President of the United States?\u201d … Continue reading