- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Statements suggest doubt about Obama growing

Two members of Congress have begun to express doubts about Barack Obama’s eligibility in statements that constituents have forwarded to WND, including one from Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who said, “Any circumvention of these constitutional requirements would be a slap in the face to the rule of law and our very democracy.”

The second comment came from Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, who told a constituent that it appears the courts should be resolving the issue, not Congress, but he wonders what claims can be brought to Obama’s doorstep.

The comments suggest that members of Congress are breaking away from recommendations from the Congressional Research Service on how to dismiss such questions.

Get the New York Times best-seller “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President,” autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

WND reported earlier how Jerry W. Mansfield, an information research specialist in the Knowledge Services Group of the CRS, issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Obama’s presidential eligibility under the natural-born citizen requirement of the Constitution.

WND has posted the CRS memo on Scribd.com for download.

Attached to the memo was an attack piece published by FactCheck.org to dismiss claims that Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth, originally published during the 2008 presidential campaign by DailyKos.com, was a forgery.

When Obama released an image of a Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” on April 27, after years of stating that the document was not available, the Hawaii’s Department of Health and governor’s office refused to confirm for WND that the image released was an accurate representation of the state’s records.

WND previously has reported statements from members of Congress that apparently are based on arguments presented in the material provided by CRS, most of them obfuscating the difference between “citizen” and “natural -born citizen” and simply making assumptions about Obama for which the evidence is lacking.

Goodlatte’s comments were
in a posting on Canada Free Press from Dean Haskins. Goodlatte’s office declined to respond to many requests from WND over a period of several days to elaborate on them.

The posting said Goodlatte’s constituent response was that a president’s qualifications – a natural-born citizen, 35 years of age and a resident in the U.S. for 14 years – have “traditionally been verified by public record and vetting done by the parties. It is crucial that any president-elect meet the eligibility criteria as determined by the U.S. Constitution and provide the necessary assurances of eligibility.”

But he said there is no office or agency in the government that now does any sort of examination of the qualifications.

“I believe that there should be a more formal process of review and validation as a matter of routine certification of candidates. The office of the presidency is undermined if Americans don’t have confidence that the candidates for the highest office in the land are qualified for the position as required by the Constitution,” he explained.

While he noted Obama “recently released to the public the long-form version of his birth certificate,” … concerns “have been raised about the validity of the birth certificate as well as the claim that the president has been using a Social Security number previously issued.”

He said those concerns have been raised “with the relevant oversight committees in Congress and if there is enough evidence and more experts reach the same conclusions then these claims will lead to an investigation.”

He noted his support for a previous proposal in Congress that would have required a candidate’s birth certificate and other documentation “necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility.”

“The United States is a nation based on the rule of law. The Constitution clearly sets forth the qualifications for the office of president, members of the House and Senate, and members of the federal judiciary. Any circumvention of these constitutional requirements would be a slap in the face to the rule of law and our very Democracy. I believe that our Constitution is a solemn contract between the American people and their government,” he wrote.

That congressional proposal was by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, whose H.R. 1503 said:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

Farenthold’s comments came via email in response to a constituent questioning Obama’s qualifications. The email was forwarded to WND. His office also declined to respond to WND requests for comment.

The email said that while “a lot about Obama doesn’t pass the smell test,” the concern was about what Congress has the authority to do.

“Many of the issues, like the birth certificate, are within the jurisdiction of the courts, not Congress. Our power over the president is impeachment for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ We learned from Clinton that lying, even under oath, probably doesn’t rise to those standards … so I’m looking for the crime. Perhaps his violation of the war powers act? It’s something my colleagues and I are considering,” the email said.

There appear to be a growing number of questions about Obama. Instead of resolving issues, the image that Obama released to the public on April 27 has raised new ones. For example, during an interview by NBC News’ national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, former Hawaii health department chief Chiyome Fukino, who has claimed to have examined the “original” documentation in the state archives, said the original document was “half typed and half handwritten.”

But statement conflicts with the document that Obama released on April 27 from the White House, which his staff members described as “proof positive” of a Hawaiian birth. Only the signatures and dates are “hand-written,” not half the document.

Also, since then, a long list of experts have challenged the validity of the document Obama released. An extensive report from Mara Zebest, who has contributed as author or editor to dozens of books on computer software, reported this image clearly is a fraud.

In fact, with the release of an image of the Hawaiian “Certificate of Live Birth” April 27, some critics charge that he proved his ineligibility, because the document lists Barack Obama Sr. as his father.

A significant number of analysts have concluded that the understanding of “natural-born citizen” at the time it was used in the Constitution was a person born of citizen parents. Obama Jr.’s father was not a citizen of the United States.

The Constitution 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.”

Since the term “natural-born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, “Where’s the Birth Certificate: The case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President” author Jerome Corsi drew from the writings of Swiss diplomat Emerich de Vattel, whose work is known to have influenced the Founding Fathers. Vattel wrote in “The Law of Nations” in 1758, “The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Corsi said that during research for his book he found the only U.S. Supreme Court case directly on point is Minor v. Happersett, from 1874, in which the court said, “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Even Senate Resolution 511, passed in 2008 to declare that John McCain was a natural-born citizen, specified a natural-born citizen would have to be born of two U.S. parents. McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone was regarded by the Senate as an exception that the Founders would have supported. The Senate reasoned that a person should not be disqualified from running for president because the parents were serving in the defense of the nation, Corsi said.

Among the sponsors of that statement was a junior senator named Obama.

The resolution includes two references to “Americans” or “American Citizens” as parents.

Among the statements from members of Congress: