Federal Courts Differential Treatment of 1974 Nixon and 2009 Obama Threatens Anarchy and Perhaps Even Civil War(?)
Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) – Justice Brandeis, dissenting (Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.) [Plaintiff’s Emphasis added.]
Today we have President Obama who is considered to have committed treason against the Constitution by refusing to prove his eligibility as a natural born citizen to be President of the United States. This places Obama and his Administration as lawbreakers inviting anarchy.
Anarchy is clearly evident when Obama’s refusal to respect the Constititution’s prerequisites for the Office of President emboldens an unscrupulous person to criminally obstruct justice with a forged birth certificate.
In Alan Keyes et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:09-0082-DOC-AN, plaintiffs’ attorney, Orly Taitz filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Expedite Authentication, Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authenticity of Kenyan Birth Certificate Filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes Phd on August 1, 2009.
Then, a week later, August 7, 2009, WorldNetDaily publishes, Blogger: I Created Kenya Document: Posts Images of document, Says ‘You’ve Been Punk’d’.
A blogger who is maintaining anonymity is claiming to have generated a Kenyan birth certificate for the president that appears similar to the one unveiled days ago by a California attorney who has shepherded several lawsuits over Barack Obama’s eligibility.
The blogger wrote on fearlessblogging a list of materials used in the work, including: Fine cotton business paper: $11, Inkjet printer: $35, 1940 Royal Model KMM manual typewriter: $10, 2 Shilling coin: $1, Pilot Varsity fountain pen: $3 and then cited “Punkin’ the Birthers: Priceless.”
Producing and distributing the forged Kenyan Birth Certificate is a criminal act under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 Frauds and Swindles, 18 U.S.C. § 1423 Misuse of Evidence of Citizenship or Naturalization, 18 U.S.C. § 1425 Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully, 18 U.S.C. § 1426 Reproduction of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers.
On one hand we had a white president Nixon in 1974 who resigned under threat of impeachment over the Absolute Privilege Doctrine for presidential communications to which the federal court enforced its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Today we have a black president Obama who hasn’t yet proven his eligibility to occupy the Office of the President to which the federal courts refuse to enforce its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Is this Affirmative Action in practice or is it unmitigated racism because it is definitely NOT equal justice under the law.
United States v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683, 705-707 (1974):
However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
“While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of “a workable government” and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
The same rule of law should also apply to civil proceedings seeking a judicial remedy against President Obama and his refusal to prove his eligibility to hold the Office of President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.