If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33)
Today another court hearing is being held with respect to the effort to get at the truth concerning Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Obama faction representatives at the U.S. Justice Department are moving to quash the possibility of any serious investigation of the relevant facts. With respect to the hearing before Federal Judge David Carter, involving "attorney Orly Taitz and numerous plaintiffs", including me, an article at WND.com reports that "In a motion filed Friday in Santa Ana, Calif., attorneys for the government did not directly address the merits of Taitz's claims, but instead focused their efforts on technical procedures, suggesting the matter can't be decided in court and that the dozens of plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they have been injured by having Obama in the Oval Office."
It's ironic. Today Obama will address America's school children. Many parents have expressed their anger over what they regard as an effort to seduce their children into the Obama personality cult being assiduously promoted by the Obama faction's media claque. However, Newsmax.com reports that noted Republicans Newt Gingrich (Gingrich: Obama School Speech Good Idea) and Laura Bush (Laura Bush backs Obama on School Speech) have no problem with the speech. Gingrich says "It is going be a totally positive speech. If that is what it is, it is good to have the president of the United States saying to young people across America stay in school and do your homework. It's good for America." The former first Lady declares that it's "really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States."
Such 'business as usual' niceties beg a simple question, however. Why should the citizens of the United States have more respect for Barack Obama than he has for the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, by whose authority he claims to be President of the United States? Thanks to the Declaration of Independence, the United States is not Great Britain. Unquestioning deference to titles and the trappings of office has never been the basis for the respect Americans have for the President or any other official. In and of themselves such officials are no better than anyone else.
We respect the just form of government established by the Constitution. Those authorized by the Constitution to occupy and carry out the offices (duties) it establishes are the beneficiaries of this formal respect. Beyond that, we owe them no more or less respect than we accord to any other citizens, or for that matter expect to be accorded ourselves.
As they come to understand the facts of the situation, a growing number of Americans seriously doubt that Barack Obama is in fact authorized by the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States. The Constitution requires that to be eligible for that office an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States. We would reasonably expect an individual sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States frankly and voluntarily to submit any and all information necessary to establish compliance with its terms. Instead when confronted by questions concerning the circumstances of his birth, Barack Obama has refused to take the simple step of releasing for proper scrutiny the document that should allay all concern. He has gone further. By every legal means at his disposal he has sought to prevent release and scrutiny of any and all evidence that might bear on the facts of his birth, or his claims of citizenship at various stages of his life.
But he has not been content to shirk his own sworn duty. Through his personal attorneys, and the U.S. Justice Department's lawyers he has relied on elitist arguments that subvert the long recognized right of the people "to appeal to the standard they have formed", i.e., the Constitution of the United States, and seek by reasonable and proper means to secure respect for its provisions. According to these arguments, Americans must be part of some special and privileged class in order by legal means to seek redress against individuals whose self-serving dereliction of duty assaults the integrity of the Constitution and thus damages the whole body politic. In order to protect himself from scrutiny, Obama seeks to cut off all peaceful and legal means to call him to account for his evident evasion of the Constitution's requirements. Apparently, he cares more for the peaceful enjoyment and security of his own ambition for power than he does for the Constitutional agreement on which the domestic peace and security of the nation depends. Indeed, he and those willing to defend or acquiesce in his dereliction have quietly relied upon the tacit threat that, if not sustained by legal maneuvering, his evasion of the Constitution's requirements will be enforced by means that transgress the boundaries of civil peace. "There will be riots in the streets."
Thankfully Orly Taitz and the people she represents have more respect for that Constitutional agreement than Obama does. Despite legal setbacks; despite vicious name calling and other attempts to dehumanize and degrade them; despite studied efforts to ruin their reputations and deprive them of their jobs and other means of support, they persevere in the effort, by peaceful and legal means, to secure a serious and respectful inquiry into the facts that must be evaluated in order to honor the Constitution's eligibility provision according to its terms.
It is more than just a sad day when the peaceful efforts of people seeking simply to preserve the basis for civil order and peace can be thwarted and repressed by others quietly willing to rely on tacit threats of civil disorder. There was a time when it was understood that one of the virtues required of judges and others sworn to uphold the Constitution was the courage to do so despite such mobocratic terrors. Of course, such courage has been wanting before in America's history, when racist lynch mobs went about their deadly efforts to discourage and repress the citizen rights of black Americans. Now is cowardice come again, only this time surrendering the rights and Constitutional sovereignty of the whole American people?