Forlorn Hope

I sent an E-mail last night to some of my regular correspondents, both liberal and conservative, stating that the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) had essentially refused to hear the pending case concerning President-Elect Obama's eligibility to be President of the US (POTUS). Apparently, SCOTUS could issue a ruling on Monday to hear this case, that is, not all of the "orders" were made public Friday afternoon.

As I understand the present focus of this case, P-E Obama is ineligible to be POTUS because he is not a "natural born citizen". At P-E Obama's birth, his father held dual citizenship as a Brit and a Kenyan because Kenya at that time was a British protectorate. Therefore, although P-E Obama was born in Hawaii, a part of the US at that time, he was "tainted" by tipple citizenship (British and Kenyan from his father and US from his mother) and could not have met the Constitutional requirement as a "natural born citizen".

Again, as I understand the situation, the people who brought this case before SCOTUS no longer challenge the veracity of P-E Obama's birth certificate, at least for the purposes of this case.

Subsequent hours of "mature reflection" after the E-mail I sent caused me to change my mind. I now think SCOTUS should hear the case with all deliberate haste prior to the time the Electoral College meets. That is, SCOTUS should under no circumstances rule to delay the meeting of the Electoral College.

A forlorn hope is a military term that dates to the days of muzzle-loading muskets, and was most frequently used to refer to the first wave of soldiers attacking a breach in defenses during a siege. It was likely that most members of the forlorn hope would be killed or wounded. The intention was that some would survive long enough to seize a foothold that could be reinforced, or at least that a second wave with better prospects could be sent in while the defenders were reloading or engaged in mopping up the remnants of the first wave.

My forlorn hope is that a full hearing of the case before SCOTUS will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice, thereby, putting these conspiracy theories in the deep six. Yes, I realize that we can never disprove a conspiracy theory because the conspirators can always come up new interpretations. Nevertheless, a full public airing before SCOTUS could have two obvious salutatory effects:

(1) More likely - the conspiracy theorists will be shown to be idiots completely out of touch with reality but, nevertheless, entitled to their "day in court". Sure, the conspirators would declare the SCOTUS was, by definition, part of the conspiracy to elect an ineligible person. If the SCOTUS issues a ruling on Monday that they will not hear the case, this charge of co-conspiracy will be enhanced.

(2) Less likely - P-E Obama could be ruled ineligible to be POTUS due to deficiencies in his citizenship status. Yes, in order to preserve the Constitution, I would be willing for the country to undergo the trauma such a decision would engender. I do, however, shudder at the turmoil we would have to endure.

My preferred outcome: An expeditious but full hearing of the case and then dismissal with prejudice thereby prohibiting the conspiracy theorists from again bringing the case before SCOTUS.

I do admit there is some finite probability that outcome (2) could be demonstrated; hence, my desire for the hearing.

I am well aware of the difference between absolute and legal truths. I first became introduced to this difference when I served on several occasions as an expert witness in law cases. As a scientist, I consider truth to be what can be demonstrated in the laboratory or other scientific arenas. The lawyers quickly disabused me of this idea. Legal truth is what the legal system, e.g., a jury, judge, appellate court, declares is the truth of an issue. Thus, legal truth - which may or may not correspond with scientific/absolute truth - always triumphs.

We are a nation of laws, beginning with our Constitution. No, I won't get into an argument at this time about Judeo-Christian laws not only influencing our Constitution but superseding our civil laws.

All of us, including the people who have brought the Obama citizenship case before SCOTUS must be prepared for the following: Even if, in an absolute sense, Sen. Obama lacks citizenship eligibility to be POTUS, but that point cannot be definitively proven before SCOTUS and thereby leading SCOTUS to dismiss the case, legal truth will triumph and become the pragmatic reality with which we must deal. (OK, a long convoluted sentence but it makes my point.)

P-E Obama appears to be highly intelligent (without reference to his political persuasions). One does not graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School without some smarts. He has taught Constitutional Law at the law school level. He had to have been aware of all the issues about his citizenship well before he began his campaign for POTUS, probably even at the time ran for the Senate. Two logical conditions therefore appear evident:

(1) There is nothing untoward about his citizenship eligibility. I suspect he probably sought the opinion of Constitutional scholars.

(2) He's not eligible but has managed to obscure (hide, deep-six) that fact in such a way that the absolute truth can never be proven. If I am correct, he doesn't have to prove legally that he is eligible to be POTUS, the people bringing the case must offer definitive disproof. Otherwise, SCOTUS will simply laugh off the issue.

Anyway, I await the SCOTUS orders on Monday. Yes, I'm beyond being surprised at what SCOTUS might do and human venality/hubris. That's why I refusing to accept at this time Charles Harlow's statement to the effect that Detroit should re-engineer its cars to run on the huge amount of BS generated by this case.

Have a good weekend, or at least what's left of it.

Blessings,

Mike

Ev