Saturday, November 29, 2008

To My Fellow Conservatives:  The Legal Issue of BHO’s Citizenship is Moot (for now)

by W. T. Howes

The time to challenge President-elect Obama’s citizenship has long since passed.  Based on long-standing principles of election law, opponents must raise defects in nominating petitions, including the eligibility of the candidate, at the time of the filing of the nominating petition.  Petitions were filed in late 2007 and early 2008.  There were no legal challenges And not for nothing:  Don’t you think that Senator Clinton would have raised this issue in order to keep BHO off the ballot?  Citizenship will remain as a political issue, and may return as a legal issue in 2012.

In the weeks that have passed since the general election, there has been much legitimate debate in the conservative blogosphere about President-elect Obama’s citizenship.  The debate follows litigation filed by Phil Berg (Pennsylvania), Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) and Alan Keyes (California).  All three of those suits raise interesting points of law and fact.  The bottom line is that no court will - or should - now bar BHO from taking office in 2009.

Some well-established principles of election law have been at work in the Obama case:  Voter choice, ballot clarity and efficient administration of elections, to name three.  Unfortunately, none of the interested bloggers have discussed these principles.

President-elect Obama was nominated in each of the fifty states (except Michigan), Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia in the manner mandated by the election law established in each of those jurisdictions.  There are general principles of election law that underlie the process in each state and territory.  A nomination is established, with a few exceptions, by a nominating petition filed by the legal deadline with the chief election law in the state or territory.  There are a minimum number of signatures required, and qualifications for people who sign the nominating petition.

There are a number of ways that a petition can be deficient.  If a petition is deficient, the appropriate election officer can refuse to permit the candidate on the ballot.  If that does not happen, the petition is subject to legal challenge by opposing candidates.  There is a very short window of opportunity for such a challenge.  Bases for petition challenges fall into three basic categories:  (1) Insufficient number of qualified nominating signatures; (2) technical deficiencies; and (3) the nominee lacks legal or constitutional qualifications or suffers from a constitutional or legal bar to serve in the particular office.

The reasons for the short time period for petition challenges are clear:  The ballots must be prepared in a timely and orderly manner.  Once they are prepared, the voters and the candidates then can rely on the ballot as prepared by the election official.  In that time-honored manner, the voters know what their choices are and can be confident that their choice will be honored.

In the Obama case, not one of his opponents challenged any one of his petitions in any state or territory.  Election litigation is one of the hallmarks of the Democratic Party.  Indeed, President-elect Obama has benefitted from outstanding lawyering both in his initial State Senate election (in which his lawyers had the incumbent disqualified) and in his U.S. Senate election (in which his lawyers were able to push the incumbent out of the race).  Sentator Clinton had dozens of outstanding election lawyers on her team.  Some of her political allies served as chief election officers in the states and territories.  She had the knowledge.  She had the opportunity.  She had the ambition.  And Team Clinton is certainly capable of hardball politics.

Despite all that, Senator Clinton did not challenge any of the Obama petitions based on his legal or constitutional qualifications to hold office.  Why?  Lack of gumption?  No.  Lack of knowledge?  No.  Lack of resources?  No.  Perhaps Senator Clinton did not make such a challenge because her research indicated that BHO was legally and constitutionally qualified to hold the office.

Interested observers have asked:  Well, why didn’t Obama produce his vault birth certificate to be examined in a court of law?  The answer is easy:  Because the legal issue was never properly framed in a petition challenge.

Now that the general election has taken place, it is too late to disqualify a candidate.  The electorate in the states and territories had a very long period in which to consider their choices both in the primary and in the general.  No court should now reverse those elections and the choices of one hundred and twenty million people.  To do so would be to invite legal and civil chaos.  To do so would create a power vacuum which could be a national security threat.

Citizenship will remain as a political issue for many, and it may return as a legal issue once the future President Obama begins to file nominating petitions for his re-election.  But for now, the citizenship is moot as a legal issue where the 2008 election and 2009 inauguration is concerned.

W. T. Howes resides in New Jersey with his wife and two children.  He practices law with a specialty in election law.  He is a founder of Men for Palin.  He formerly published under the pen name Charles W. Fairbanks.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Thanksgiving:  What Everyone Should Know

by John Philoponus

Thanksgiving Day itself is over.  Now that we are back from early morning Black Friday bargain shopping, and are settling into the Friday leftovers of turkey soup and cranberry dressing sandwiches, it behooves us all to reflect on the true meaning of Thanksgiving.  Thanksgiving is a true American celebration with Biblical roots.  One of our female MFP correspondents offers the following thoughts from her home in California.

Second only to Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day is a uniquely American holiday.  And as an American holiday, it is rooted deeply - like our nation - in faith in God.  The earliest Thanksgivings were celebrated by Americans who were keenly aware that their blessings - like their rights - came from God.  In times of hardship unimaginable to us today, they took time to give thanks to their Creator.

Throughout early American history, when they suffered from drought, famine or war, Americans paused, not to seek vengeance or to question their faith, but to give thanks to God for the blessings they still had. At a time when the economic news seems to get worse very day, it is important to remember the humble faith of these early Americans.  They didn’t just give thanks when times were good, they gave thanks when times were bad - especially when times were bad.

Voices from Thanksgivings Past:

“The centrality of God in Thanksgiving in America comes through in the words of some of our greatest national leaders” - Virginia Gov. Thomas Jefferson, 1779.

“[I] appoint . . . a day of public Thanksgiving to Almighty God . . . to [ask] Him that He would . . . pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers of the Gospel that He would spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth . . . and that He would establish these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue.” - President George Washington’s first federal Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789.

“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . . Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1863 . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.” - President Abraham Lincoln, making Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863 in the midst of the Civil War.

All of the early Thanksgiving celebrations had one thing in common.  The thanksgiving was directed toward God.  It did not matter that many had very hard times.  The people knew that God was their creator and provider and that all good things ultimately came from Him.  It is in his spirit that I bring you the following passages from God’s word:

“Give thanks to the LORD, call on His name; make known among the nations what He has done.” - 1 Chronicles 16:8

“Give thanks to the LORD on his name; make known among the nations what he has done.” - Psalm 105:1

“Give thanks in all circumstances for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” - 1 Thessalonians 5:18

During these times of great economic difficulty it may be hard to think about how we can be thankful but that is actually the best time to be thankful because it helps us to remember what we really should be thankful for.  You see if we have food, freedom, shelter and friends and/or family who love us we should be considered rich by any standards.  Think of the thousands and thousands of people scrambling into our country for freedom, liberty.  It is really a matter of perspective.  Let us focus on what really matters this Thanksgiving such as our faith, family, friends, our soldiers, our nation and show them how much you appreciate them this holiday season.

HAVE A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Thursday, November 27, 2008

India:  Islamic Retaliation for Lawful Action Against Somali Pirates?

by Charles W. Fairbanks

This Thanksgiving Day while we are eating turkey and stuffing and watching the Philadelphia Eagles get trounced by Denver, one of our allies is on the brink of all-out war with radical Islam.  The Indian Navy has taken lawful action to protect maritime commerce in the Gulf of Aden from the Somali Pirates (above right).  Is the Muslim terrorist attack on Mumbai (above left) retaliation for India’s defense of shipping.  MFP pities the fool that underestimates the Indian military.

I am thankful for many things this Thanksgiving, but I am mindful of the fact that one of America’s greatest allies is in the crosshairs of terrorist aggression.  India is a booming democracy and ancestral home to millions of patriotic Americans.  India is our ally.  Today our ally is fighting a two front war.

India is the only nation of note to oppose the Somali pirates with the only thing that terrorists understand, force.  In recent weeks, the Indian Navy has used force to protect international shipping.  On November 11, 2008, pirates hijacked a 38,265-ton bulk carrier, owned by the Great Eastern Shipping Company 60 nautical miles east of Aden. The Indian Naval Ship Tabar, then 25 nautical miles away from the spot, transported Indian marines to the ship for a rescuce.

The Indian Navy has been conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden from October 23. A naval ship, with a contingent of marine commandos and helicopters on board, has been sent to the port of Salalah in southern Oman.  The government of India has been negotiating with middle eastern governments to help protect trade.

The Somali pirates are backed by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab.  The United States State Department has designated Al-Shabaab as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.  Al-Shabaab recruits jihadists and has as one of its goals the institution of sharia worldwide. 

Sound familiar?  Sound like Al Quaeda?

As the Hotel Taj Mahal in Mumbai burns in the fire of confrontation with terrorists, intelligence officers struggle to discover the identity of the aggressors of Mumbai and the identity of their allies.  MFP thinks that the forces of good should consider whether there is a link between Mumbai and the Horn of Africa.  In the meantime, our ally is in the crosshairs, but I pity the fool that underestimates the Indian military.  The bad guys may be in for a rude awakening.