Obama and the Birth Certificate

Presumably all have heard of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s refusal to permit the release of his birth certificate by the Hawaiian authorities. The rub is that Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part: “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. . .” Hence, unless the Hawaiian birth certificate of President Obama in fact establishes that he was a “natural born citizen”, he is ineligible to be President.

While a slew of lawsuits were filed during the election last year, all were dismissed for lack of standing. Now, a new lawsuit is pending which appears to be postured to force the issue. In Barnett v Obama lawsuit, Army Captain Barnett decided last January that she did not want to accept orders from Obama till he proved he had natural born citizen status and could rightfully ascend to the Office of President of the United States. . .

Her lawsuit is pending. As expected the U.S. Department of Justice is moving to dismiss the lawsuit and a very interesting legal brief in response to the motion to dismiss has been filed. And what the argument comes down to is this: Who decides – the government or the people? I am following this not because I have a dog in this birth certificate fight, but because it does address the division of power between government and the people thus forcing the question: what does the Ninth Amendment actually reserve to the people?

More as it happens in this case.