That Bleeping Birth Certificate

That Bleeping Birth Certificate

Posted By Steven D. Laib On December 6, 2008 @ 8:16 pm In Politics: General, Constitutional Issues, Civil Liberty & Rights, Elections & Political Parties No Comments

The government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications and to make public any documentation thereof; after all, when they apply for the highest office in the land, they should be held to the strict constitutional standard and every citizen has a right to see that the Constitution is followed.
Certain elements of the blogosphere have recently paid a tremendous amount of attention to the question of whether or not the state of Hawaii should be required to produce the original birth certificate of president elect Obama. Regardless of claims that this is a red herring, or assertions that Paul Berg is a crackpot who should be ignored because he is a “911 truther,” the certificate should be produced. Secondly, Berg’s suit should be taken seriously, and his standing to sue should be affirmed.

While the courts have generally looked with disfavor on suits such as his, they have been wrong to do so, and they should allow this suit for a very simple reason. When no one else, i.e. government agencies, is enforcing the law of the land, only private citizens may do so, and the only manner in which they may do so, short of armed insurrection is in the courts. Within this context, Berg is effectively acting as a “Private Attorney General” acting on behalf of all of the citizens of the United States. He does so because the Federal Election Commission, the other candidates and the U.S. Attorney General have done nothing to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility. All of them could have and should have. The situation is similar to that which occurred in 1968, when the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. California Secretary of State Frank Jordan, discovered that according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was one year short of the required 35 years needed to run. Cleaver was removed from the ballot and Jordan’s actions were upheld in the courts.

The concept of the private attorney general has existed for a long time. Frequently, it has been found in class actions where someone seeks to force the government to follow its own rules. The courts have frequently allowed private attorney general lawsuits to proceed where civil rights violations are concerned. This situation is not significantly different, as the rights of the entire population to see the constitution followed should trump any other consideration. We must ask, if the government is not going to enforce its own rules, then who will, if the courts say that private citizens cannot.

As I have not seen Berg’s paperwork, I cannot state whether or not he used this approach in his petition, and if not, it may have been a fatal error. None-the-less, Berg is right in making his request and his suit should be allowed to proceed because he is certainly asserting a case based on reasonable doubt, and a presidential candidate should be required to prove that he or she is eligible for the office they seek. And, the government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications. After all, a person seeking much lower privileges, such a driver’s license or voter registration must produce a birth certificate; why not a candidate for the highest office in the land. Which situation implies a higher duty by government officials; state statutes or the national constitution?

A second approach, favored by Dean John Eastman of Chapman University Law School, which he discussed with Hugh Hewitt on the Salem Network, December 3, 2008 is based on the corporate law principle that the shareholders can sue to force the officers or directors to follow the corporate charter or bylaws. The Supreme Court has never accepted this view, with respect to constitutional issues, either. Its view that citizens have no standing has allowed it to dodge difficult issues where the Constitution is concerned, despite the fact that they should undertake enforcement of the “supreme law of the land” as Chief Justice Marshall put it many years ago.

The state of Hawaii is asserting that privacy laws forbid it from revealing the certificate. This should be considered a bogus claim. Anyone running for the presidency has placed himself in the arena of a public, rather than a private citizen. A candidate is, for all practical purposes, giving up his privacy rights, and making his or her entire life open to scrutiny by the public and the press. Their personal records should and must be part of this. If Obama supporters are allowed to investigate and report on “Joe the Plumber” with impunity, the public has an equal and reciprocal right to investigate a candidate.

There is a second and even more important reason why the certificate must be produced. As Berg’s suit, and those of other parties have pointed out, birth status is a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. If this rule is not followed, then it brings into question the issue of whether or not any aspect of the Constitution, at all, must be followed. Already we have seen challenges in the courts and in the overall media environment of certain government actions. Whether we are dealing with establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, or bailing out the financial and automobile industries, people have valid questions. Sometimes it is not enough to say “you have no standing to sue” or “this is covered under the legislative interstate commerce clause and is settled law.” It is a slippery slope argument, but such arguments are not invalid simply because of the foundation they are built on. The courts should regularly review such actions to prevent legislative power from running unchecked. The intent of the framers of the document should carry significant weight in such review.

As for the Obama birth certificate, I, personally, have no interest in the thing beyond silencing the argument over it once and for all. If the certificate is never produced, and proper birth status is never verified, one way or the other, it will likely become the core of another Great American Conspiracy Theory such as those surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy assassination conspiracies have been debunked, for all practical purposes, but they haven’t gone away. We don’t need another one of these things. We need openness, we need transparency and we need honesty. If there is a valid certificate, stating all of the relevant information as the state of Hawaii asserts, the Supreme Court or any other court should support its production for public view. I doing so, it can state a compelling public interest; the interest that the Constitution must be followed, and that anyone who seeks office governed by the Constitution must prove their eligibility, or it calls constitutional authority into question. In fact, every candidate from Hilary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani should have been required to produce their certificates when filing as candidates. The matter should not be subject to question because of the constitutional requirement.

Paul Berg isn’t entirely a crackpot. His case has merit, as do the others seeking production of the certificate. If it is produced and everything is in order, the case disappears along with the conspiracy theorists and the office of the presidency goes on without a hitch. If it is not produced, the potential for future complications could be very significant. We might even end up with President Ahhnold, who could claim that he wasn’t really born in Austria, and that he doesn’t have to prove he was born here. See what I mean?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy: http://www.intellectualconservative.com

URL to article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/06/that-bleeping-birth-certificate/