** What if the Birthers are right? **
Then, as my logic prof put it, the moon really will be made of green cheese.
It would seem that all (or at least most) laws passed would be laws as a bill that is unsigned for ten days when Congress is in Session becomes law without the President’s signature. The more relevant question would be the status of any vetoed bills on which the veto was not overridden. Perhaps those are laws as well for the same reason.
Maybe if the OP was “What if the Birthers WERE right”? people would be less angry.
In Peru whenver we’ve had an illegal governement - gotten ther via coup - all the laws remain in place unless they specifically break the constitution. You can’t undo 8 or 12 years of legal history.
Obama has been certified as the President. Any acts he undertakes as President are valid and wouldn’t be undone if it was revealed that he was ineligible to hold the office of president.
Every bill he signed and every order he gave would be valid unless counteracted by his successor. The only remedy if he is found ineligible is to remove him from office. His acts in office do not become retroactively invalid.
You people are so slow. It doesn’t matter that he wasn’t born in Hawaii and even if he was he inherited British citizenship through his father (though why that should stop him being American God knows - if the US doesn’t like dual citizenship it just ignores the other {and in reality he’d have to be registered with the British Consul}). You see Hawaii isn’t American :smack:
Get this that was on a Yahoo nut list I belong to. Looks as if the poster thinks it’s important.
Subject: [apfn-1] FW:
IMPORTANT~IMPORTANT~What Now~IMPORTANT~IMPORTANT
Importance: High
FroDELETED
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:27
PM
To:DELETED
Subject: IMPORTANT~IMPORTANT ~What
Now~IMPORTANT~ IMPORTANT
Everyone
is still missing what is in this document. We know he is really from
Kenya .
However, everyone is fighting that truth. This is a separate issue.
This is straight from the Policy Index of the Hawaiian Legal Index which
states, " Hawaii has never legally been a
state of the United States “.
Now, what are they going to do? I was talking to Chris
tina on the phone and jokingly said, “I wonder
when Hawaii became a state of the
US ?”
We were originally looking for a date. However, once we started
researching it…” Hawaii has NEVER been a
legal state of the US "
in their own words of their own legal index. I could not believe my eyes.
He is still (even lying) not a natural born US
citizen because " Hawaii has NEVER been a
legal state of the US ".
No one realizes that Hawaii was “never
legally adopted as a US
state”. I know it is unreal but, we printed the document and you can
go to their site and see it in their own words. So…once everyone
finishes freaking out, because Chris tina
and I still are…what happens now???
Return to the Hawaiian Independence Home Page,
the Legal Index or the Policy Index
The upside-down flag of Hawaii, which was the flag of the Kingdom
as well as the State, symbolizes a “nation in distress” and is a
common sight in the islands today…
Is Hawaii Really a State of the
Union ?
[NOTE: The following
essay discusses, as a basis for independence, how Hawaii illegally became a
state in 1959, but it is important to keep in mind that Hawaii’s independence
was recognized via treaty
by the United States (as well as all major nations of the world in the 19th
century) and thus the situation with Hawaii is distinct from all other
non-self-governing territories which were placed under Article 73 of the UN
Charter. Hawaii should never have been a
territory/colony of the United
States , and it is not required to undergo a
formal decolonization process at this time in order to restore independence.
The illegality of the overthrow and annexation are well documented in the
United State 's
own official apology,
so the purpose of this essay is to counter the assumption that the 1959
statehood vote legitimized the United States ’
occu pat ion of
Hawaii .]
The following
information provides an historical perspective on how Hawaii
came to be integrated into the United States
as a state of the Union , and the fact that
this status is not and has never been legally valid.
Obviously
America claims that Hawaii
is part of their country, and most people, in
Hawaii , on the ‘mainland’ and around the
world, have tended to accept that as so.
The common understanding
is that in 1959, a plebiscite was held in which the people of Hawaii
voted to become a state of the Union, and on August 18, 1959, Hawaii
was admitted to the Union .
What led up to this
event?
In 1945, at the end
of World War II, the United Nations was established. In the Charter of the UN,
a special provision was made for certain areas of land, including Hawaii, which
was placed under CHAPTER XI,
DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Article 73
"Members of the
United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of
territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government
recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these
territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to
promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security
established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these
territories, and, to this end:
a. to ensure, with
due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political,
economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their
protection against abuses;
b. to develop
self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the
peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free
political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory
and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
c. to further
international peace and security;
[d. - concerns
“constructive measures of development,” research, etc.]
e. to transmit
regularly to the Secretary-General, for informational purposes, subject to such
limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require,
statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic,
social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively
responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply."
So Hawaii, under
Article 73, was a part of the UN system, and was placed under the administering
authority of the United States, which, to reiterate, agreed to “develop self-government,
to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist
them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. …”
with “due respect for the cultures of the peoples concerned…”
Did the
United States
fulfill this “sacred trust obligation”?
Under Section (e) of
this article, the United States
was responsible to transmit information to the UN regarding
Hawaii and the provisions of Article 73.
Transmission A/2135,
from the US to the UN in 1952, states that:
“Throughout the
school system, the social studies programme aims at creating an understanding
of American ideals and purposes, knowledge of American history and government,
practice and principles of citizenship. …”
Self-government? Due
account of the political aspirations of the people?
At one point, a
former territorial senator, Alice Kamokila Campbell, filed suit to halt the
spending of public funds to “propogandize and subsidize” the
Hawaii statehood
campaign. She said, as quoted in a Honolulu
Advertiser article, “the illegal expenditures are to the detriment of
citizens and taxpayers opposed to statehood … Moneys are now being expended
for liquor, luaus, dinners, entertainment and other purposes and objectives
contrary to law … the acts and conduct are of a purely political
nature.”
Self-government?
Progressive development of free political institutions?
Then, in 1959, the
“plebiscite” was held.
It is important to
consider two central questions:
What was voted on?
Who voted?
- What was voted on?
The question on the
ballot (see
below) was:
“Shall
Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union
as a state?”
Yes or No? Become a
state, or remain a territory?
Why was the option
of independence not on the ballot? Did Hawaii
not have the option to become an independent country in 1959? In fact it did.
The document guiding
the process for removal of territories from the List of Non-Self-Governing
Territories was UN Resolution 742 (VIII).
“Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a
Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have not yet attained a full
measure of self-government.”
This resolution
stated: “…the manner in which Territories. … can become fully self-governing
is primarily through the attainment of independence. …”
One year after
Hawaii 's “plebiscite” vote, on 14 December
1960, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1514, Declaration on
the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This
resolution includes the following passages:
All peoples have the
right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
Inadequacy of
political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a
pretext for delaying independence.
Immediate steps
shall be taken, in trust and non-self- governing territories or all other
territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to
the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in
accordance with their freely expressed will and desire…
These UN resolutions
clearly indicate that independence was not only an option at the time, it was
the primary option under international principles and the fundamental
inalienable right to self-determination, and specifically with regard to
non-self-governing territories under article 73 of the UN Charter.
Not only was the
option of independence not on the ballot, it was not even discussed, while
statehood was actively propogandized with public funds, and American political
ideals were indoctrinated through the schools.
In truth it was the
United States’ obligation to fully inform the Hawaiian people and assist in the
attainment of the goal of independence, not to extend their manifest destiny
thousands miles across international waters.
Violating the
obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and “supreme law of
the land” under Article VI Section 2 of the US
Constitution, is also a violation of the
US Constitution itself.
The
United States
government did not uphold their “sacred trust obligation.”
The vote for
statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and
has no validity in international law.
- Who voted?
Any
U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a
year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military
servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occu
pat ion force that had illegally held
Hawaii since the
admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898.
Native Hawaiians
would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American
citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were
not allowed to vote.
The
island of Ni’ihau ,
which was almost totally Native Hawaiian, and was relatively free from the
propaganda of statehood, voted overwhelmingly against statehood, as did the
island of
Lana’i .
In 1993 Congress and
the President decided they had something to apologize for. Most of Public Law 103-150
deals with the events of the 1893 overthrow and the 1898 annexation. But one
important clause relates directly to 1959 and the present:
“the indigenous
Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent
sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the
United States , either through their
monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.” (emphasis added)
“National
lands” means the entire archipelago of
Hawaii .
“Inherent”
means a birthright, given by Akua, that no one can take away.
“Sovereignty”
means total authority and control over land and natural resources, and is
virtually synonymous with independence under international law.
Sovereignty (partial
definition):
“The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent
state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount
control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the
self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political
powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with
the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign
dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and
independent.”
- Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
In other words, the
United States Congress and President have
acknowledged that the Hawaiian national population still maintains their
birthright to control the land and natural resources of all of
Hawaii as an independent
country, despite the statehood vote.
Interpreting the
above-quoted clause of the Apology Resolution, international law Prof. Francis A. Boyle
(Univ. of Illinois College of Law) stated on Dec. 28, 1993,
before the state’s Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission:
“Congress is effectively
conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of
international law and United
States domestic law. So you’re not bound by
it. Rather I’m suggesting you’re now free to determine your own fate pursuant
to the principal of self-determination.”
America
gained possession of Hawaii
through a succession of illegal acts, in 1893, 1898, and 1959, and has admitted
to fact of these crimes. Hawaiian national sovereignty has never been
extinguished. Essentially, the country of
Hawaii is currently illegally occupied by a
foreign military power.
The
statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were
allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not
legitimize the occu pat ion.
Hawaii has never
legally been a state of the United
States .
The
option of independence for Hawaii
exists to this day, and the voices supporting this option are growing steadily.
Please
consider these facts carefully and share them with all who may be interested.
Mahalo.
Also see: Statehood
- A Second Glance
Return to the Hawaiian Independence Home Page,
the Legal Index or the Policy Index
My grasp on this is:
[ul]
[li]Eligibility aside, he currently is president. The electoral college presented its votes, Congress approved, and he was sworn in.[/li][li]Should anything occur to disprove his eligibility, he doesn’t stop being president. Congress would have to impeach him to actually remove him from office.[/li][li]Ergo, if he reveals an ineligibility on his last day of office…nothing changes. Eligible or not, he was sworn in to office, and any bills, orders, etc. he signs are valid.[/li][/ul]
To put it another way, the constitution and its amendments describe how things should occur. Any branch of government which fails to follow the constitution must be checked by the other branches. The Supreme Court could have stopped things up until Congress decides on a president (I’m a bit murky on when, exactly, a president assumes power). After that, I think only Congress can remove a president through actual impeachment.
However, theoretically, either of these branches could decline to act, and I don’t believe the other could force them. So, should SCOTUS or Congress fail to remove an ineligible president, which would leave it to the states to call a convention and do an end-run around Congress. I can’t imagine it ever getting that messy, but that’s speculation for ya…
The constitution will be amended to allow naturalised Presidents anyway before he’s had two terms and they will all be hopping up and down Told you so and trying to show he was never naturalised either. In fact it will be a Republican move to allow Schwarzenegger to stand.
Maybe conspiracy theorists have planned a conspiracy of their own so that they can get this change and blame it on Democrat fear of Obama’s being ‘revealed’.
Ah, but if Obama signed the bill in less than ten days, then the actions to spend the money would have taken place earlier that “constitutionally” allowed meaning that the spending occurred too early, causing a tear in the space-time continuum…
Well, besides entirely missing the point of the *actual *question, this little diatribe still isn’t important. Prior to statehood in 1959, Hawaii was a US Territory since about 1900. So, let’s say the changeover to statehood wasn’t “legal”, that leaves Hawaii in it’s previous status: US Territory, which makes Obama still a natural born US Citizen.
If that makes you uncomfortable, don’t look up McCain’s birthplace. You wouldn’t like it.
However, in 1959 Hawaii did vote to join the US as a state, and despite the protests you note, the UN recognized the change in status. So, erm, who would they complain to?
Slate had an article discussing this yesterday.
Briefly, the answer is: If Obama is shown not to be a citizen, there are three options: Obama resigns, Congress impeaches him, or nothing.
None of the birthers has any legal standing to sue because they wouldn’t be able to establish a personalized injury by Obama’s election. John McCain might be able to sue – he can argue he was denied the presidency – but the most a judge could do was remove Obama from office, making Biden president.
Finally, judges probably wouldn’t take the case under the political question doctrine, which says that the courts can’t settle questions that the Constitution assigns to other governmental branches. Since Congress approved his election by accepting the Electoral College vote, it is up to Congress to take action. All Congress could do was impeach Obama.
Further, since the Constitution is vague as to what constituted a “natural born citizen,” Congress could pass a law declaring Obama one.
beaten by 1 minute by Reality chuck
[removed link]
This is a bit of a convoluted example that requires a lot of imagining but I’ll pose it anyway since it’s related:
Suppose a bloodbath during the Clinton years Bill Clinton and Al Gore had been killed and Strom Thurmond had dropped dead upon hearing the news. Madeleine Albright would have become president.
She did not know until she was 60 years old that her parents were Jewish and said she was grown before she even realized she was born outside the United States. (Her parents- Jews who converted to Christianity years before her birth- fled to the United States when she was a baby, so she has no memory of Prague.) Let’s suppose that she honesty had not known she was not American- that perhaps her family had used her sister’s birth certificate or whatever- until after she was sworn in as PotUS, and thus there was no fraud or deception- would it still have disqualified her?
He was sworn into the office of President of the United States by a justice of the Supreme Court of the US. Any revelations after that are moot. The time to address the issue would have been before that.
Doesn’t matter whether he is found to be from Mars or one of the Lizard People controling the planet, he is now president.
Well, we’re getting awfully hypothetical now, but again the options would be that she resign, Congress impeaches her, or she remains in office. Other than impeachment, there doesn’t seem to be a legal way to remove her from office.
I should add that any removal would not invalidate anything the “non-natural-born” president did while in office.
Wouldn’t there be a statute of limitations in that case?
A serious answer to the OP:
Part of the birthers rants pre-election was the lack of oversight on determining the qualifications of presidential candidates. Secretaries of State left verification up to the political parties and courts threw out lawsuits for lack of standing. Congress rules on certification of electors, not the candidate themselves. Underneath it all was the feeling that even if a Kenyan birth certificate showed up, even with a certificate of adoption showing he was born to two Kenyan nationals, that there was no mechanism in place to prevent him from becoming President. If Obama were found to not be an NBC, a mechanism would be set up to ensure all Federal elected official are eligible (check the birth dates - I saw an Al Franken birth certificate dated 1981. He’s 12 years too young!)
BUT, a lot of conspiracy theorists do raise good points about the impotence the people have if “THEY” refuse to follow the Constitution. I like the Article V conspiracy theorymyself. Under Article V of the Constitution
I personally don’t believe that the requirements of Article V have ever been met, but just suppose that 34 states send the same letter to the same session of Congress demanding a Constitutional Convention and Congress refuses. What could be done?
This OP gives me pause. My Dad was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1941 while my grandfather was stationed there at the outset of WWII. I think its completely silly that a guy like my father cannot ever be President because he was born outside of the USA to two Americans, one of which was serving abroad during a time of war.
Is there an exception to this rule in a case like I just described?
Before we go any further, it’s more cock & bull than a farmyard.
There’s another one from the same source trying to differentiate between US citizen and State citizen that looks to me like the original was trying to get out of having to give freed slaves equal rights.
Then there’s the sub-poena on the Kenyan embassy to produce the original of alleged Kenyan birth certificate copy. (So how come there’s a copy if nobody has seen the original :rolleyes: )
When they don’t that’ll be ‘proof’ of Kenyan collusion and probably all part of the Great Muslim Plot. Kenya isn’t a Muslim country but it’s African so who cares?
There are a few very strange things about this document.
First it gives the name as Barack Hussein II . That is an Americanism, British only number royalty - II is not part of his official name.
Then there is the price of 7s 6d at the top left. British currency was not in use in British East Africa (and nearby colonies) from 1921. The East African Shilling was tied the British Shilling (and probably before that a German Schilling) but divided into 100 cents.Nothing in Kenya has ever been priced at 7s 6d.
The copy issue date is given as 17 Feb 1964, but (Wikipedia admittedly)
«
Independence from the United Kingdom
-
Date December 12, 1963 -
Republic declared December 12, 1964
»
So there was no ‘Republic of Kenya’ in February 1964. (What was it, a ‘Dominion’ like Canada?) In any case, the deputy registrar’s name ‘Couya’ looks African and this is too early for Kenyatta’s ‘Africanisation’ policy and nearly all officials were still colonial British or Indian.
I was at school and college with assorted East Africans (the white ones were - much like their Alabama counterparts) and admittedly at the height of Summer white Nairobi evacuated to coastal Mombasa. But the capital was still the place to go if you were about to have a baby.
That is exactly the situation of John McCain. He was eligible to become president because he was a citizen from birth, because he was born to US citizen parents. Your father is as eligible to be president as McCain was.
[Moderator]
I am going to request, again, that this thread focus on the question of what happens in the event that Obama was proved after his term not to be a US citizen. Let’s NOT get off on the tangent of whether the claims that he is not a citizen are valid. There have been plenty of threads on that topic, including two active ones in GD. I’m going to remind Jerseyman in particular to try to stay on topic with the OP, although others have been participating in this side issue.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator