Is the President the President?
BY ARTICLE II, section 1, of the United States Constitution, “no person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible for the Office of President”. On 27 April 2011, two days after an opinion poll had found that 62% of voters doubted whether Mr. Barack Obama had been born on U.S. soil, Mr. Obama posted a purported image of his long-form Hawaiian birth certificate at www.whitehouse.gov. Yet the results of a six-month criminal investigation made public by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ, on 1 March 2012 found the document to be a manifest forgery. Further results are expected in mid-June.
A senior judge of the Alabama Supreme Court has held obiter that documentation presented
“if presented to the appropriate forum, … would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short-form’ and the ‘long-form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public” (ex p. McInnish, Alabama S.C., March 27, 2012).
Unlike petitioners in other states, Mr. McInnish was not denied standing and may recommence his petition in the state District Court. In the light of the judge’s obiter dictum, and of the forensic and other evidence outlined here, Hawaii cannot rely upon the “full faith and credit” provision (Art. IV, s. 1) to require other States to accept the birth certificate as genuine. If it is the forgery it appears to be, at least one person at the Hawaii Health Department knows it is a forgery. But it is not clear whether the White House knows.
[jwplayer mediaid=”8677″]
Attorneys for anyone accused of a criminal offense signed into statute by President Obama under Art. I, s. 7, have the right to request access by their forensic investigators to the Hawaii Health Department’s original birth record for Mr. Obama to satisfy them that the President is the President, the statute the statute and the alleged offence an offence. By the precedent set in Brady v. Maryland (373 US 83, 1963), “The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process [14th Amdt.] where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”. Therefore, the courts will be obliged to grant any such defence request. By the supremacy clause (Art. 6), Hawaii must comply.
Does the issue matter? Advice from an eminent constitutional lawyer is that it does: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the US. We amend it, or we abide by it.” He expects a credible court challenge to the authenticity of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate soon. If it occurs,
and if the certificate is a forgery, the constitutional consequences will be grave.
http://www.infowars.com/lord-moncktons-hereditary-peers-briefing-paper-is-the…
by Lord Monckton
