Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Obama's Citizenship: Lawsuits Continue

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

This video explains the role of a Constitutional Republic. If you believe that Barack Obama was "elected by the people" and as such our Constitution is not relevant in the 2008 Presidential election, think about it again. America is not a Democracy.

Scroll down for commentary on today's Supreme Court refusal to hear Leo Donofrio's case claiming that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and information on the latest lawsuit to be considered for review by Justice Scalia on the citizenship issue. View video at YouTube.com

Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear Leo Donofrio's claim that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and as such, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. The case was dismissed without comment from the Justices - so once again, there is no hint of Obama's legitimacy or the lack of it.

The latest information in this saga came just after 7 pm this evening, from Leo Donofrio's website, NaturalBornCitizen.com.

Donofrio has participated in the preparation of another lawsuit known as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court Docket No. is 08A469:

Wrotnowski Application Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia - Distributed for Conference on Dec 12 - Supplemental Brief to be Submitted Tomorrow

From the Press Release: December 8, 2008 7:20 p.m.

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469.

The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.

Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.
There is extensive information at the above link.

Another excellent place to keep on top of any and all lawsuits filed in the endeavor to make Obama prove that he is natural born, is America's Right. The blog owner, Jeff Schrieber, lives and works in Philadelphia and is a "Legal writer by day, exhausted law student by night... He broke the story of the first failed Philip Berg lawsuit.

For those advising that I just take a look at the Obama birth certificate on fightthesmears.com, I ask how you give validity to a birth certificate which documents no hospital where the birth took place, and is not signed by a doctor?

I do not know whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and neither do you. I do know that if our President-elect had any respect for our Constitution, his proof of natural born status would have been provided immediately - and that proof would have included a delivering physician and a hospital name. Will we ever learn the truth, it's doubtful. Doesn't that make everyone feel comfortable and secure about our Constitutional Republic?

Related discourse on Constitutional Republics and Democracies:
United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic--a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”
Ron Paul: Constitutional Republic vs Democracy
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers.

No comments:

Post a Comment