This suspicion  has led to a number of lawsuits pending [approximately 17 lawsuits in 10 States] or being developed across the country that in one manner or another challenge the eligibility of Obama to hold office as president pursuant to the US Constitution requirements. Many of those suits also involve whether or not their respective State's Electors can in fact even vote for him in the Electoral College on this December 15th. Each State legislature has its own laws regarding the appointment and voting of its Electors. What is lawful in one state is not necessarily so in another.  According to the US Supreme Court, our federal Constitution has left ultimate authority of voting for a US president in any given State up to each respective State's legislature.

One such suit involving a Writ Of Certiorari [judicial review of a case in a lower court] has reached 4 Justices on the US Supreme Court, Docket No. 08-570. This Writ was petitioned to the Supreme Court shortly after injunction relief which was petitioned in a lower court was denied. Obama, being one of a number of named Defendants in that earlier suit, has been directed by Justice David Souter's Clerk to respond to the Writ on or before December 1st. Justice Souter along with 3 other Justices during a conference will vote on whether to grant certiorari. If it is granted, the case will be placed on the Supreme Court's calendar. Defendant Obama could, although he is not required, provide an authentic birth certificate on or before December 1st along with his response to the Writ.  At this time it is not known if it is Senator Obama's intent to do so.

Such birth certificate should not be confused with a Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth." Hawaii Revised Statute 338 -17.8* is  a law that provides for a document issued by the State of Hawaii which allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child's birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. It should be understood that these revised Hawaiian laws do not make a person who was physically born outside of USA jurisdiction to be nonetheless somehow actually born within the USA and be considered as "natural born" in USA jurisdiction ["natural born" is one of the presidential eligibility requirements in the US Constitution]. A "naturalized" citizen as might be the case in some instances for one whose birth is registered pursuant to the aforementioned Hawaiian "live birth" laws is not synonymous with one who is "natural born."

[ *  (§338-17.8)  Certificates for children born out of State. 

(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

 

(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. (L 1982, c 182, §1) ]

The "best evidence rule" will hopefully coming into play in the Writ Of Certiorari action. It essentially means the best evidence that the nature of the case will allow. A bona fide "birth certificate" made at the time of birth such as right in the hospital, would be "better" than a "certificate of live birth," or at least one that is generated by the State of Hawaii whereby a child who is born outside the Territory or State of Hawaii, such as in Kenya, upon application, payment of whatever fee is assessed, and after meeting some requirements, can nonetheless be issued a Hawaii birth certificate which it Department Of Health labels: Certificate Of Live Birth. Typically, a birth certificate completed at the time of birth is the first unadulterated, pristine documentation that captures the circumstance of birth. This is unlike a "certificate of live birth," which in some cases is a form of documentation created at a later date where it is in part a transcription, or is a copy to some degree, of an original birth certificate but upon which additional factors open to interpretation, abbreviation or alteration for purpose of registration could be taken into account that were not necessarily documented nor witnessed at the actual time of birth. This, in turn, can lead to discrepancies between the two different forms of documents. [The likelihood of alterations occurring at a later date is exemplified on Obama's purported Hawaiian "Certificate Of Live Birth" of August 4, 1961, that is dated as filed on August 8, 1961, whereupon the race of his father is stated as "African" despite the fact that during the early 1960s, his race would have been normally identified as "Negro." It would not have been until years later on official documentation that the Negro race would sometimes also be termed as "Black" and even more years after that where it might also have been acceptably termed as "African." For the purpose of comparison, here is what a Hawaiian certificate of live birth of a person named "Alan" looks like that was created back in 1963 (click here). Now compare that form to Obama's purported Hawaiian "Certificate Of Live Birth" dated over 2 years earlier on August 8, 1961 (click here). It is obvious that Obama's "Certificate Of Live Birth" was generated many years after his birth.]  

Whenever Obama will finally produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate [completed at the location and time of his birth, which in any case was supposedly in a hospital], comparing the two forms of documentation, namely, that hopefully forthcoming "Birth Certificate" and the "Certificate Of Live Birth" [generated at some later date] will make it be evident beyond any reasonable doubt that the bona fide "Birth Certificate" is the "best evidence" to even the casual observer much less Supreme Court Justices in matters deciding whether someone is natural born, and of course also the strongest evidence in demonstrating the "natural born" eligibility requirement in Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution. 

However, it would still seem to me to be too soon to gloat even if Senator Obama does in fact provide Justice Souter a bona fide birth certificate in his Response to the Writ or does so at a later date should the matter get scheduled to go before the entire Supreme Court. The matter of Obama's eligibility for the presidency would not yet be laid to rest on that eligibility requirement alone. At this time there is still a question as to whether or not Barack Obama is currently a US citizen. Resolving this issue is more complex.  An example of this can be seen by reading a Petition For Writ Of Mandate filed with the Superior Court of California on this November 12th, on behalf of Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes who, among other things, is a noted Constitutional scholar. 

 Nevertheless, should the Electoral College go on to elect Obama on December 15th, such election in itself does not create Constitutional eligibility where none exists for the candidate in question; nor, would such election by the Electoral College negate any of the Constitutional requirements in its Article II, Section 1:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

In other words, what this means is that even if the Electoral College elects him and Obama takes the oath of office, but sometime later during the time he appears to be president, irrefutable proof arises manifesting that Obama was ineligible to become president, Congress could impeach him for that reason, and among other things, remove him from office; but, in terms of the "bigger picture," that would be the least of its concerns. Unlike other potential reasons a president could be impeached and removed from office, if someone who was seemingly holding the office of president is removed from that office for the reason that he or she was not Constitutionally eligible to hold that office at the very onset, all that he or she did in their supposed official capacity as president would be null. This is to say not voidable, but simply void.  In other words, other than such as in this election where if such fraud were proven and consequently 122,394,724 voters were disenfranchised, which would be about 40% of the population, all of it would be as though nothing ever happened. No law, no treaty, no executive order, no nomination, nothing requiring any act by the president and/or commander in chief during the time in which such imposter, this is to say, poseur and usurper pretended to hold office under the "color of authority" would have been of any legal effect. Moreover, any governmental, judiciary, military, naval or foreign policy events or actions that could only have been first set into motion by presidential executive action or order by the commander in chief during that specious presidency would also be void having no authority.

If such irrefutable proof would come to light subsequent 4 or 8 years of a specious presidency, the legal mess it would leave would be unthinkable and inconceivably far reaching. The US government might never recover.

The moral of the story: It's a real good idea to know for whom we're voting. The more they who are running for office don't want us to know them, all the more reason we'd better first find out who they really are. Otherwise, the harm they might cause all of us could be irreparable. - Michael

       Interesting Links:

Certificate of Live Birth analysis - Part one

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location - Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office

SEE THE EVIDENCE

An Open Letter to Barack Obama: Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? Are you legally eligible to hold the Office of President?

Supremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices

Obama not yet "President-elect" until Electoral college votes Dec. 15.; BUT. .. U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to produce his Birth Cert. by Dec. 1

Full Page Ad in Washington Times Weekly - November 17, 2008