Friday, January 9, 2009

Produce a birth certificate and end all questions

When I applied for a passport I was asked to supply my birth certificate. This seemed like a reasonable request; how else could the passport office know I was entitled to an American passport?

I was not seeking to become president of the United States; I wasn’t even trying to enroll in any of the plethora of government welfare programs, I was merely doing something as a citizen I had a right to do.

If I was trying to become president and I was not yet 35 years old, I would not qualify. If for some reason it was noticed that my boyish looking countenance seemed unlikely to be of a 35 year old, then my qualifications under the constitution to be president would be questioned. At that point I could stonewall the questioning or I could produce my birth certificate. Since I am sincere in my belief of my constitutional qualification, and respect the United States Constitution, which on assumption of office as president I will swear to uphold, defend and protect, I will happily remove all doubt and produce my birth certificate and authorize all agencies to make copies available to the public; that’s just me, it seems not everyone thinks this way.

What do you suppose those questioning my constitutional qualifications, the public and the news media would think, say or do if I didn’t produce my birth certificate? If the issue was somehow brought to the attention of the Electoral College, the Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, should they ignore the possibility I am not qualified to be president? If you answered “no”, then you are at odds with the Electoral College, the Congress, the news media and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until now Congress, the Electoral College and the news media have refused to consider the possibility that I may not meet the Constitutional age requirement. However, after three failed attempts to get the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, a legal challenge that alleges that I am not 35 years old and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will occur after my assumption of office; the U.S. Supreme Court will conduct a conference on the dispute set after the January 20 inauguration. The court's website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices January 23, 2009.

The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court December 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today's notice confirmed it was distributed for the January 23 conference.

Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling one of the cases, said, "The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Vincent Gioia as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: 'Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.'" She noted the available procedure during congressional review for a member of Congress is to object to the Electoral College results and demand documentation regarding Gioia’s age, but this was not done.

Ms. Taitz said members of congress "can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Vincent Gioia is of sufficient age to be president.”

"This is the message that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them. … (The) truth will come out, no matter how many millions Gioia is spending to hide it," she said.

Among the plaintiffs in this case are four California Electors to the Electoral College.

Taitz said her case was rejected by the California Supreme Court with a single-word decision, "Denied" despite her arguments based on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, while the Constitution requires candidates to be 35, and the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of that ruling.

Until the question of Gioia’s age is resolved, there will be a cloud on his presidency. This could mean that any legislation signed into law by President Gioia would be null and void; clearly creating an enormous challenge to our system of government - though those opposed to Gioia’s socialist agenda may actually be delighted at that outcome.

For those unfamiliar with the pertinent section of the Constitution, I reproduce it below.

Article II, Section 1

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not attained the age of thirty five years, and been a fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The language is entirely clear; if you are not a natural born citizen or thirty five years old, you are not eligible to be President – producing a genuine birth certificate would prove eligibility and put the issue to rest. We can only wonder why that is not done; it certainly is simple to do and failure to do that would mean to many that it cannot be done.

5 comments:

Ted said...

Obama can't be POTUS.

Since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress' count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama's eligibility issue over to Congress, rendering moot both the Berg and Lightfoot cases, Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama's failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg's request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.

Checkmate! (WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA?)

Vincent G. Gioia said...

I agree!

prsmith said...

I don’t know if there’s anything on that tape or not. I do know that we have a RIGHT to find out. Since the LA Times refuses to release it, we have little option but to force them to do so.

If you live in LA or subscribe to the LA Times, I strongly encourage you to:

a.) Cancel you subscription -- TODAY!
b.) Make sure the newspaper knows why you cancelled.
c.) Grab a copy of the paper and make sure that their advertisers, especially the big ones, know that you’ve cancelled and why.
d.) Make sure the newspaper knows you’re talking to their advertisers.
e.) If you can spare some time, picket/protest the LA Times offices.
f.) Encourage your friends, neighbors, coworkers, family, etc. to do the same.

If we hit them hard enough on their bottom line, they WILL release the tape.

prsmith said...

Sorry, my RoboForm program seems to have an issue. Don't know where that comment came from.

Keri said...

It is predictable that the mainstream media is not reporting on this issue, but why the frustrating silence from conservative talk radio?