Roughly a year ago – in response to mounting public pressure generated largely by Donald Trump – the Obama administration released what it claimed to be a PDF of Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate. Not long afterward, several bloggers (most notably Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com) announced that the PDF of the long form birth certificate (LFBC) was a computer-generated fraud.
In those days I was blogging for RightDirection.com and relayed this development, together with the forensic evidence for the claim of fakery, in an article I posted on May 11. Here is what I wrote:
Proof positive that the LFBC is a fake? Probably not, absent an examination of the original document by a team of forensic experts. But it should give pause to sensible people who value empirical evidence and as long as these issues stand unresolved, the matter of authenticity will never be settled. On the other hand, the birth certificate itself is irrelevant in the matter of Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualification for the office of president because we cannot be certain that he is a “natural born” citizen.
… many contend the country’s founders understood a “natural born Citizen” – as listed by the Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution as a requirement to hold the office of president – to be a person born of two American parents.
Barack Obama Sr., who is listed as the father, was not a U.S. citizen.
The president himself even seemed to acknowledge the relevance of parental citizenship when he co-sponsored a resolution to address Sen. John McCain’s presidential eligibility that implied a “natural born Citizen” must be born to “American citizen” parents.
In my opinion, THIS is the best case to make, as the facts are not in dispute. The law, on the other hand, is a different matter, insofar as there is no legally binding definition of “natural born citizen” outside of the resolution and several court decisions. And yet, even this aspect of the case is pointless.
We stand roughly a year and a half away from the 2012 presidential election and the birth certificate issue is not longer relevant from a politically practical perspective. Even if the undisputed and ontologically certain truth regarding the circumstances surrounding Mr. Obama’s birth were to emerge, it wouldn’t matter as far as the larger scheme is concerned.
Yesterday, the lovely and ever-gracious Nicole sent me a link to an Examiner.com article by Jeffrey Phelps that makes a rather extraordinary claim:
Lawyers representing the current sitting President of the United States of America have been forced, under penalty of perjury, to admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House in April of 2011 is a total forgery.
In a NJ ballot access eligibility case spawned by Tea Party activists, attorneys representing Obama had to admit the document presented to the American people by Obama himself is actually knowingly faked and was used to fool the American public into believing a complete fabrication.
What could be the most shocking aspect of the situation, however, may be the fact that Obama and his attorneys have crafted an argument that truly boggles the mind.
In a direct assault on everything the citizens of the USA take for granted, in layman’s terms, his attorneys literally made the argument during a hearing on April 10th that because the document was so obviously faked and could not possibly be considered proof of citizenship, the document itself should not be allowed as evidence in the case.
Obama is now basically asserting that only a legitimate document should be allowed as evidence in this case and therefore this one should be thrown out due to the fact that it’s not real. The Judge agreed.
This certainly IS stunning. But is it accurate? I find it difficult to believe that attorneys representing Mr. Obama would state in open court that the Internet version of the LFBC was an outright fake, so I did some more digging. Sure enough, Terry Hurlbut provides clarification of the arguments presented by Alexandra Hill, the attorney representing President Obama:
About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Hill admitted in open court something that no lawyer for the Obama campaign has ever admitted. Obama never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Furthermore, the PDF file that the White House has served to the Internet since April 27, 2012, is not relevant to the case in any way.
This is not quite the same as declaring that the document posted on the Internet is a fake.
Moreover, Alexandra Hill has the facts and the law on her side.
Even if the Internet copy of the LFBC were proven to be authentic and not tampered with in any way, it would still be worthless in a court of law: only the actual document itself or a certified physical copy of it would be admissible. That Mr. Obama never furnished the NJ Secretary of State with a true copy of the LFBC is irrelevant for the simple reason that he was not, by law, required to submit one.
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for the plaintiffs, maintained that the NJ State Constitution and case law (Stothers v. Martini, 6 N.J. 560 [N.J. S. Ct. 1951]) imposed upon the Secretary of State the obligation to affirmatively determine whether or not a candidate for political office in the state was qualified to run for that office.
Nathaniel Roubideaux – whose claim I verified by actually reading the decision of the court – offers the following clarification:
In Stothers, the clerk of the city of Passaic refused to accept petitions for nomination of Stothers (not Strothers) because he didn’t qualify for office according to the express language of the relevant statute: “Each member (of the commission) shall have been a citizen and resident of the municipality for at least two years immediately preceding his election, or shall have voted in such municipality at the two general elections immediately preceding his election.”
The plaintiffs argued that the clerk’s refusal to accept their petitions violated their constitutional right to nominate whoever they wanted. Though it’s immaterial, it’s unclear which constitution they’re talking about, as the case was decided with reference to the New Jersey constitution.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s task was to decide “the constitutionality of R.S. 40:72-1, as amended, N.J.S.A. and in resolving this issue we need only decide whether the Legislature may prescribe reasonable qualifications for elective municipal offices and, if so, whether the requirements of the statute in question are reasonable.” Thus, the court was only deciding whether the NJ constitution permitted a municipality to enact a statute that expressly set qualifications for office where the constitution was silent on such qualifications: it did.
The court did not decide, nor was the issue even presented, whether a candidate nevertheless has some independent obligation to prove he is qualified for office where the operative statute clearly doesn’t say he does. In other words, the court disagreed that the NJ Constitution, which said nothing about qualifications for commissioner, trumped the municipal statute, which did.
As surely as the NJ Constitution is silent with regard to qualifications for the office of municipal commissioner, it is likewise silent with regard to qualifications for the office of president of the U.S. – although it does set forth qualifications for registered voters (Art.2, Sec. 1, Par.3-a), the governor and lieutenant governor (Art. 5, Sec. 1, Par. 2) and state senators and assembly members (Art. 4, Sec. 1, Para. 2). Nowhere in the document is a candidate for the office of U.S. president required to submit proof of his constitutional eligibility for the office.
Predictably (and properly), Judge Masin ruled in favor of President Obama – although his conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii leaves me scratching my head insofar as Ms. Hill offered no affirmative evidence to support this determination.
While I suspect that the Internet copy of the LFBC is probably a fake, the law compels me to agree with Alexandra Hill: the state of New Jersey does not set forth ANY qualifications for the office of U.S. president, thereby rendering both the Internet LFBC and the actual document – irrelevant to the matter at hand
It follows that Mr. Apuzzo’s legal challenge is, legally speaking, a fool’s errand.