Thomas Jefferson Says Forget About Barack’s Birth Certificate
Posted on December 9, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…
OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up until now because I have been trying to resolve the dichotomy in my mind between being a Constitutional constructionist and a pragmatist. But, at long last I have realized that the two really aren’t as much at odds as it might seem. In fact, I found my answer in the words of Thomas Jefferson — as well as Madison, Franklin and a few others, but we’ll stick with Jefferson quotes for the sake of a sharply focused discussion.
I have discovered that Thomas Jefferson has already told us upon which side we as conservatives should descend over the question concerning Barack Obama’s birth certificate and his eligibility for the office of president of the United States. Mister Jefferson would tell you all to shut up, accept cruel fate, and get ready to claim Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.
That’s right, forget about it. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Before you get your Constitutional shorts in a bunch, I absolutely agree with you that we are a nation of laws and not men. Jefferson did too, once saying that we must consider what the original intent of the Constitution was before we rush into a decision and the original intent in this case was clearly to make sure every president was a natural born citizen of this country before being eligible to run for that highest of offices. (”The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered … according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated [for it]…”– Thomas Jefferson)
The simple reason that the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen was because they were keen students of history. The phrase “let history be our guide” was not just a trope. The founders knew well the many instances when a foreign ruler had entered a country and, using that country’s own laws and customs, immorally proclaimed himself the ruler of a subjugated nation. The founders wanted to prevent that possibility and also wanted to make sure that there were no divided loyalties in an American president, that the welfare of the USA would be first and foremost in the mind of anyone elected to that office. What better way than to preclude the foreign born?
So, yes, the proscriptions against the foreign born candidate are important and should not be cast aside. We should never knowingly present a candidate not born as a citizen of the U.S. Further, we should take pains to verify the provenance of every candidate’s claim to natural citizenship.
But… and you knew the “but” was coming. There is an original intent that rises above the Constitution itself. In fact, there are a few, but one in particular comes to bear here.
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, nearly every member of the founding generation placed a particular emphasis upon the locus of power in the governing philosophy of the American system and it was a locus that was unique for its day — as well as the reason many detractors felt we could not survive as a nation.
That locus was in the will of the people.
Let’s start with an 1813 letter to Samuel Dupont authored by Jefferson. In that letter, Thomas Jefferson said that the people “are in truth the only legitimate proprietors of the soil and government.” In 1821 he wrote to Spencer Roane that, “[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs.” And in 1823 he told William Johnson that, “The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.”
Earlier in 1799, to Edmund Randolph Jefferson made for a longer explanation.
“The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge and to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory; it is their will which creates or annihilates the organ which is to declare and announce it…”
Near the end of his life he took up the theme once again. In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright he also reiterated the meaning of the Second Amendment and the rest of The Bill of Rights.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”
What are we to make of these words then? Only that in the people of the United States is vested the true power in our system. We decide. We hire and fire, we create and destroy. We the people are sovereign.
Unfortunately for our side, on November 4th, 2008, the people made their will known. Over 39 million voted to place Barack Obama in the White House. There is no doubt that the people have spoken.
Now here is the problem a conservative constructionist faces. You may have heard the saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact? Well, that sentiment applies here. We have suffered through eight years of the left illegitimately claiming that the Supreme Court “chose” George W. Bush, that his election was not legitimate. In the minds of many we placed the will of the people in doubt that time and got away with it — whether true or not a very large number of people feel this way. But, trying it a second time, and so soon on top of that, will undermine the integrity of the election process especially in this case where it was a clear majority that voted for Barack Obama.
The last time the people felt their will was so thwarted, a major upheaval in our system occurred. That upheaval resulted in the system being changed to one of popular election and Andrew Jackson took his seat in the White House after being previously denied that seat by what he claimed was a corrupt bargain. After Jackson won his first election, the anger of the people gave his party, the Democratic Party, controlling power for decades afterward.
The question remains, do we now strangle our conservative movement by making it to appear forever more that we don’t care what “we the people” have authoritatively decided in a fair election? Do we commit suicide with the letter of the law even when the people voted for their man in good faith? Worse, do we want a major upheaval of our current system should we deign to thwart this particular election?
Perhaps Barack Obama is knowingly lying about his status as a natural born citizen. But those that voted for him did not have the slightest inkling that he may not be eligible when they cast their ballot. And it will not be taken lightly should he be barred from the office millions elected him to take. In fact, it is likely that if we nullify Obama’s election, conservatives would only stave off but briefly a resurgent Democratic Party that would end up having the fullest support of the people for decades to come, putting conservatives in a self-manufactured seemingly permanent minority.
Of course, Obama’s foreign birth, if it comes to be true, will undermine his presidency. But better to have a single president’s legitimacy undermined due to his actions than to undermine the entire electoral process. It should be noted that Nixon understood this point well. In 1960 it was pretty clear that the Kennedy’s stole the election in Chicago and that LBJ stole it in Texas in order to put Kennedy into the White House. Nixon could easily and legitimately have contested that election. But Nixon did not dispute the 1960 election so as not to undermine the entire system. He felt the will of the people had been heard and for the good of the nation it should stand.
So, while the Constitution is mighty important, the will of the people is supreme. And the will of the people has been clearly heard in this case. The vote was not close. Barack Obama won, fair and square in the minds of the electorate.
There have been rules of ascension before. Constitutions existed before 1780, too. But a true first American principle is that the people hold the highest power. And we as conservatives, we who claim the mantle of the founders as our own, should not be so quick to obviate that truest of our first principles.
Believe me, I don’t want this clearly socialist man as our president. I think he will do us some damage. I want his policies stifled as much as you do. So, let us oppose this man certainly. But let us do it manfully and in the spirit of our most cherished ideal.
And let us plan for 2010 and 2012.
» Filed Under Barack Obama, Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Elections, News
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “Thomas Jefferson Says Forget About Barack’s Birth Certificate”
Leave a Reply
My take on the Monday, Dec 8 National Press Club Conference on Obama’s Conference that was, again mischaracterised by the MSM:
No surprise that Mr. Obama failed to respond yet again. Bob Schultz started a few minutes early giving the background of the mysterious Obama and the dangers of the attitudes expressed by some that “the people have spoken”. We do not have a democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, he noted and educated the attendees on other violations of the Constitution relating to other issues beyond the definition of the “natural born citizen”. The news that Donofrio’s case was denied this morning by the Supreme Court cast a pall over the speakers. Schultz expressed his dismay that at the Court as he feels that the Court is the only place to resolve the meaning of the “natural born citizen.
Orly Taitz said that while no one was to discuss his case at the conference, Donofrio spoke with her earlier to say that he thought that the “glitch” in how his case was handled at the state level might have been the trouble. I may be wrong on this, but I got the feeling that Donofrio is not giving up yet.
Taitz, a Russian national, really hit home on the media, charging that the Press in America now is worse that what she experience in the Soviet Union. “There never would have been a Watergate if today’s press covered the scandal,” she volleyed to the group of press members and bloggers.
Taitz questioned why not a single television station posted what a vault birth certificate looked like and for not contrasting it with the scan of a COLB. (Berg had experts willing to show that the COLB is a forgery as it is, but I digress.)
She showed a copy of Obama’s application to the Illinois bar, noting that Obama wrote “none” in the space for other names used. She had a copy of Obama’s mother’s divorce with Lolo Sortero, pointing out that the two children had taken Sortero’s last name and that Obama’s first name at the time was “Barry”. Taking the word of an attorney who took an oath knowing that he lied on his application should have been made public by the media.
Phil Berg presented his case along with an update on filing a stay preventing the Electoral College from voting. He called out Obama, noting that with his and Michelle Obama’s education and as lawyers, they are willfully participating in the greatest con of the century. Berg wants Obama to thank the American people for voting for him, an African American, and then step down.
The Rev. Manning attacked the press and stressed that it was time to put the county first, like he heard during the campaign. He unabashedly criticized the press for its lies and distortions. He listed, among other things, media coverage on the recent rally/support group that was present at the Supreme court last Friday.
Manning used the opportunity to present messages of his own too, shedding some light on Jim Crow of the fifties an sixties and the division the NAACP originally had over accepting Obama as a black president. Manning remarked about Obama’s lineage charging that his mother was “trash” (Manning’s word, saying that was the term at the time) and that his father was a promiscuous drunk. (My words.) He stressed that Obama has extended his illegitimate birth to his illegitimate claim to the Presidency.
Jefferson had nothing to do with the constitution.. he ofter recused himself because he was not present when it was created, written, .. Don’t go to him for constitutional answers.. he would have told you.. not to use him as the basis for the understanding of it.
– Read the others.. memoirs in most public libraries.. this is in books of what they were orginally thinking when writing the constitution… It might help you some..
Rather than the snip here and there to fit my answer to the discussion.
have a great day.
pat Z,
Thanks for not bothering to engage in a discussion of any actual issues here. You’re a peach.
If Obama had been properly vetted, he would not be President Elect. The “people have spoken” but the subject was misrepresented!
The will of the people was manifested without the facts being made known to them; that would make the election of Obama a fraud.
The will of the people can be manifested with regard to Article 2 by following the prescribed method of repealing that Article by constitutional amendment, not by the people acquiesing in a fraud.
I can accept the argument of the written article, if and only if you can get every one who voted for the MISREPRESENTED Obama to vote again that it is not important for them that he is not an American Citizen or who he portrait himself to be. As has already been stated – if Obama lied and cheated to misrepresent himself as something he is not – and he did. Than the vote of “the people” was based on fraud and emotion – not actual acceptance of the real person – but of the “cartoon” person he portrayed himself to be. I do not deny that Obama won the election – (unlike every Democrat I know did when Bush won) – but I do protest the “Obama” that they thought they were electing as “non-existent”, therefore “unelectable” legally.
By all means, folks, continue pursuing this “misrepresentation.” Continue to deny the hard evidence plainly in front of you. Continue to deny all logic and reason. Continue to think that this is all one big conspiracy and that anyone that says otherwise is either lying or part of this so-called conspiracy to defraud America. The more you do, the more you continue to alienate yourselves from the rest of the population.
When two are competing for an office and the one that wins is proven to be ineligible, does his opponent then become the winner?
I am extremely angry at this cabal that is trying to undermine and bring down our republic. I have undergraduate majors in philosophy and mathematics, and a law degree. I taught at a university, practised law and spent 20 years in investment banking. I am a lifelong sttudent of history with a particular interest in the Byzantine Empire. My fwvorite historical works are “Byzantina Kai Meta Byzantina” by Spyros Vryonis, “Rise and Fall of the West” by William McNeal, and the 13 volume history of civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. I have a very high IQ. I resent being told by my intellectual inferiors that they understand this birth certificate issue better than I. I was aware of this issue back in June and did quite a bit of research on this before the election. I even considered McCain until he chose Sara the Hun for the VP spot. I looked at the “Certification of Live Birth” as posted and found no problem with. It stated the two eligibility qualifications: date and place of birth. THe Certification is prima facie evidence of the facts therein according to Hawaiian law, which means it can be overcome only by substantial evidence. The evidence of the critics that I have seen is almost exclusively on gossip, rumor, hyperbole, and apparently deliberate falsehood. For example: Assuming your assertions are true, Obama was born at Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961 at 7:45PM. The birth information was presented to the Honolulu records office before 5PM on the 8th. I have carefully examined the timetables and flight schedules for 1961. THe trip would have been by East African Railroad to Nairobi, by Air India to Aden, Bombay and Singapore, by BOAC to Hong Kong, by TWA or PAN AM to Honolulu. All the flying would have been by slow prop planes (Douglas DC-4s and Lockheed Super G Constellations), except for the Hong Kong to Honolulu leg which would have been by a Boeing 707 jet.THe earliest she could have arrived at Honolulu would have been on the evening of August 9, so it was impossible for her to have registered the birth on the 8th.
If this issue were to be tried in a court of law, virtually all the evidence that you side could present is heresay and inadmissible.
Your motives about being conserned about the Constitution are very suspect, since I have not heard any of you complaining about the trashing of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution by the “Nacht und Nubel” arrest and detention authority of the Partiot Act.
What about the fact that the Electoral College is the body that, in fact, decides who will sit in that office? Just as – misrepresented for 8 years as theft of the election – they did in 2000, 2004, and will do again in 2008, as they have for so long?
The E.C. inherently has the power to subvert the will of the people, but I don’t see anyone yelling to abolish it (unless they vote against the will of the people yet again, in a few days). That’s hardly letting the people decide, is it?
Why was the E.C. established? (I tend to get a little snarky with this, and giving out the answers doesn’t help others learn anyhow, so I’ll let them look that up and find out for themselves.)
Makes me wonder what will be going through Supreme Court Justice Roberts legal head right
before he swears Obama in as the president.
Both will/have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
For all you lawyers with or without High I.Q.’s; Donofrio’s case: Donofrio v Wells
was pitched (of course with out comment or opinion) after full conference. YET….only on a fatal procedural error.
AND…the court
overlooked the fact that the New Jersey Ballot was flawed and illegal because Wells did not VERIFY by any means the eligibility of the three candidates: McCain, Obama, and the NO ARGUMENT Roger Calero who was a Green Card foreign National from Nicaragua.
New Jersey Law REQUIRES the Secretary of State to Verify that these candidates are
eligible.
The Court took the low road on this. It takes courage to seek the truth and takes nothing to placate the sheeples.
I’m confused.
Are we trying to prove that he was born in Kenya?
The word of a dead grandmother who is not available for cross-examination simply isn’t enough!
We’re going to need hospital documentation as well as flight manifestos and such.
Remember at that time it would be unusual for anyone other than medical personnel to be present in the birthing room.
A white girl would be reason for all sorts of notations in records.
The answer is staring everybody in the face and is quite obvious once the tangential improbabilities are removed.
There is a difference between a certificate of live birth and a birth certificate BUT anyone requesting a birth certificate nowadays is likely to receive a
computer generated copy. It’s what I got recently, but also have a copy of the official “vault” copy from when I was born in 1946.
However, I do not recall PROOF of one’s birth place being part of the application process for POTUS….
I realize that the people govern. And you made a strong case to let it go, but this is not a democracy, and the people have never elected a President.
It matters not that 66 million voted for Barack Obama. If he is not eligible, and portrayed himself to be eligible, he perpetrated a fraud on the people.
90% of this country didn’t want the United States Congress to give 850 million dollars and unfettered power to the Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson is likely rolling over in his grave about that.
It matters not that 52% of the people voted someone that is ineligible for the office into that office, if it turns out that he is ineligible.
Very eloquent words, but respectfully, I must disagree.
markbureau
Just curious,
Warner Todd Huston, are we to believe that you are a self proclaimed conservator or a real conservator.What a joke.
Give me a break.Everything can be done for you messiah?
Obama is going to be the POTUS.
The problem is that he has not properly verified himself for the status of his birth which is required for a person that run for POTUS.
The short form picture of his live BC that is sailing in internet from fightthesmears and alike s is not good enough because it does not contain the necessary information to determine one’s birth. I bet that Obama could not even have used it to obtain his driver license.
Add to this the fact that Hawaii issues documents like that even to people that are not born in US and someone will understand the concern.
All you people that absolutely love messiah
are going blind and do not see in front of you what is going on.
“OK, I have basically stayed silent about this whole Obama birth certificate dust up.”
After alling felony document fraud, a “dust-up”, you should have stayed silent..
Our founding fathers did not approve of using fraud to steal the White House. They tended to want their Presidents to be honest men and no con artists and criminals.
Ben, you are too stupid to reply to. Have a nice life. Try learning some grammar.
Mr. Huston:
While I appreciate your viewpoint and understand how this issue is a difficult one to grasp, in good conscience, I still can’t sit back and not do all I can to make this issue know to the public. The MSM did not vet this man for office; instead they gave him a pass. There isn’t anyone that can say they have as much knowledge about him as they do about Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. This hype and image creation was done using the best marketing ever seen. Perhaps that is what made me start researching, because it was so unusual. What I found certainly didn’t match what I was seeing on TV on any of the stations. I thought I was reading and hearing about two separate individuals. The one I researched and the one presented on TV. Because the candidates I supported weren’t chosen, I needed to learn about the others.
Needless to say, I did research Obama, and was aghast at what I read. I believed there would be no way that anyone would vote for the man with his background or no accomplishments…not for the highest office in the land. I was wrong.
I also was researching the citizenship issue of both candidates. That is where I saw problems, and then others were seeing those problems also. I looked up the vetting process, and could find no information as to who is responsible to ensure that both candidates are eligible. What and who I thought did it, the DNC, was incorrect. I understood Natural Born citizen, but couldn’t see how Obama could be natural born if his father was from Kenya. That is about the time all the lawsuits started which was way before the election.
No man hides all his documentation from the public when he runs for office; his life is an open book. Obama lost, destroyed, sealed or hid any documentation regarding his life. An honest man doesn’t hire 3 law firms, 8 attorneys, and spend over $800,000 to fight lawsuits requesting him to prove his eligibility if he is not hiding something.
Can we agree that Obama taught Constitutional Law and that he would understand the eligibility requirements before he ran for president? If we know that there would be no misunderstanding of the term, natural born citizen, to a lecturer on the subject, and a graduate of Harvard, would we consider him to be fraudulently running for office? If he signed a form, a document stating that he was a natural born citizen, wouldn’t it be considered fraud? I believe it would be. Now I will give you the URL so you can see it.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/
To me, he has already lied to the public, and we should be outraged, not complacent. When I saw the Arizona document that he signed stating he was a Natural Born Citizen, I knew this man was unethical, untrustworthy, and without character. He is not the man to represent the USA as our President, the highest office in the nation. No we can not turn a blind eye to this, we can’t allow this man to set a dangerous precedent. It is immoral and wrong. He has deliberately deceived the American public.
Those people that say just let it go, the people have spoken, are saying that our Constitution is meaningless. I emphatically disagree with letting this pass. If the public had been given information about him, instead of fluff, he would never have received the votes. If they knew he deliberately lied, and there can’t be any misunderstanding, they would be as stunned and as incensed as I am and, as you should be.
BridgetteB,
I agree with you. I live in Chicago and know intimately how corrupt the politics are here. Also how closely Obama is aligned with it.
But, it is too late. He won.
And, if you think I said that we should just go on and say our Constitution is meaningless, then you neither grasped my points, not read with a clear eye my post. I will not dignify that accusation with serious discussion.
And you don’t know the half of it!!
Just wait until the REAL Mr. and Mrs. Obama are exposed. That time is coming, and very soon.
Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.