“The U.S. Constitution Hall of Shame” Has New Members From Congress – CitizenWells

CitizenWells has recently embarked on a new project called

The U.S. Constitution Hall of Shame

Mr. Wells is in the process of presenting a collection of letters written by members of Congress (House and Senate) in response to citizen inquires about President Elect Obama’s failure to minimally prove he meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the Constitution. The overall sense one gets from reading these letters is one of disappointment and anger towards our representatives. The wholly deficient content of each letter written is why its author has regrettably earned his or her place in The U.S. Constitution Hall of Shame.” (To date there are 10 Members in the Hall of Shame.) Mr. Wells also points out the defects of each letter as he posts them.

This important work opens with a gentle reminder to our Senators and Representatives of the oath they took when they began their service to “We The People” and “The Constitution.”

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Congressional oath of office

Following this reminder, Mr. Wells has provided links to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives so readers can easily find contact information for his or her representatives. I strongly urge every person that is concerned about this issue to contact as many members of Congress as you can. Call them, as time is getting short. We need to find (persuade) at least one Senator and Representative to make a written objection to the vote of the Electoral College when the Congress meets on January 8, 2009. Such a move could also help persuade the Supreme Court to grant Certiorari in Berg v. Obama when they discuss the case in Conference on January 9, 2009.

This is followed by the listing of the members of the Hall of Shame and their letters.

It is clear that our Senators and Representatives have failed to do sufficient research regarding the numerous lawsuits challenging Sen. Obama’s eligibility to fully understand the legal implications (or lack thereof) of each decision made by the various courts. (Alternatively, they are intentionally trying to mislead.) I was further shocked to find only a superficial understanding of the Constitutional eligibility requirements for the Office of the Presidency.

The authors of the letters presented so far are also woefully misinformed about what can be determined from the documents that the Obama campaign and his supporters have tried to pass off as Obama’s original birth certificate. Most Members of Congress parrot the AP’s unfounded implication that Obama was born in Hawaii and that it was confirmed by officials in Hawaii. It was not. Until we see the long form of the birth certificate, no such implication can be drawn.

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

ACT NOW! CALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND URGE THEM TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: