- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Senator: Eligibility is up to the voters
Posted By Bob Unruh On 03/04/2009 @ 10:15 pm In Front Page | Comments Disabled
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.
A U.S. senator has suggested that voters have made Barack Obama eligible to occupy the Oval Office, whether or not he meets the constitutional mandate of being a “natural born” citizen.
The comments from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., came in an e-mail sent to a constituent shortly after the election, which just now was forwarded to WND.
The constituent had asked about Martinez’s perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.
“Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the
primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama
won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely
contested presidential primaries in American history,” Martinez responded.
“And, he has now been
duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both
the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were
raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the
qualifications to hold the office of president,” he wrote.
Multiple WND calls to Martinez’s offices in Washington and Florida today asking for comment did not generate a response from the senator.
But he admitted the “federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political
He cited the constitutional provision requiring a president be “natural born.”
But Martinez noted the Constitution does not provide for an enforcement mechanism, and he cited a federal court opinion that a taxpayer and voter in Pennsylvania didn’t have standing to force Obama to provide documentation of his eligibility.
“The District Court dismissed Mr. [Philip] Berg’s suit and held that the question of
Obama’s citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further
noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular
presidential candidate is qualified to hold office,” he wrote.
Martinez did not respond to the issue of the actual requirements in the Constitution for the president to be “natural born.”
The WND reader who forwarded the e-mail was alarmed.
frightening in its implications and should alarm every freedom-loving
American and military member. I myself am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force
(1979-84). Senator Martinez has said, in essence, that it doesn’t matter
what the laws are or what the Constitution says. If the people elected him,
Obama is president – period.”
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No 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.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
WND reported just a day ago when a lawyer organizing a challenge to Obama’s presidency confirmed one of the plaintiffs, a soldier who is required to take orders from the commander in chief and would have a need to know his authority for being in office, was ordered by commanders not to talk to the media about his concerns.
Attorney Orly Taitz, the California activist who through her DefendOurFreedoms.us foundation is assembling the case, told WND of the military’s order for the officer’s silence.
The officer’s identity was withheld to prevent further actions against him.
However, Taitz confirmed to WND there would be no lack of plaintiffs in her action, which challenges Obama to prove by what authority he operates as commander in chief.
The plaintiffs are citing the legal standard of Quo Warranto, which also was cited in a case brought by New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others.
The idea, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
Among those requesting the action are Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; and Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely.
“As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [to] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3,” the document said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
“She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president,” he told WND. “In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’”
Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”
According to the online Constitution.org resource: “The common law writ of Quo Warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama’s eligibility, hasn’t it been released to quell the rumors.
Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/90767/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.