by Joseph DeMaio, ©2020

(May 6, 2020) — Please…, please let this come true: if (i.e., when) Joe Biden flames out either before, during or after the Democrat Convention in Milwaukee this coming August, the idea is being floated that a potential substitute candidate (and ticket) to replace him would be… drum roll…. Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.  Not kidding, Virginia.

The Democrats are so desperate to oust President Trump, yet so petrified – with good reason – that Joe (“Wow,-little-girl,-your-hair-smells-great!”) Biden is about to crash and burn on the tarmac, that some are actually considering a ticket headed by Clinton for president, with Obama as vice-president.  However, as correctly pointed out by George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, for a variety of reasons, that ain’t gonna happen.

Nonetheless, the issue has surfaced in a post appearing at The Hill which references in support of the idea a Cornell Law School Professor, one Michael Dorf.  The Hill post cites a 2015 article in The Washington (“Hello-Darkness-My-Old-Friend”) Post characterizing Dorf as a “constitutional expert” who would likely conceptually support a Clinton-Obama ticket.

The theory Dorf advanced back in 2000 was that a former president could be deemed “eligible” to serve as a vice-president as described in an article he wrote while he was at Columbia University Law School and positing that Bill Clinton could run on an “Al Gore/Bill Clinton” ticket.  The gist of Dorf’s argument was that, while Bill Clinton could not be twice elected “to the office of president,” he could still run as a vice-presidential candidate with Gore and, perish the thought, if Gore for whatever reason left that office, Clinton would  “ascend” or “succeed” to the office rather than be “elected” to the office.  Same here: Clinton out, Obama in.  Interesting argument, but off-point.

As Professor Turley notes in his post, there are many reasons why, because of the restrictions of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment, neither an “Al Gore/Bill Clinton” ticket in 2000 nor a “Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama” ticket in 2020 would pass the constitutional smell test.  However, both Professor Turley and Professor Dorf – respectfully – focus  on the wrong constitutional provisions in arriving at their respective, albeit differing, conclusions.

Stated otherwise, both law professors confine their focus to the “eligibility” and “elected vs. succession” issues in terms of the intent underlying the 12th and 22nd Amendments.  No attempt by either professor is made to address the 900-pound gorilla over there in the corner, which faithful P&E readers will immediately recognize: Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the “natural born Citizen” eligibility clause.  In Professor Dorf’s case, that failure is somewhat excusable, since in 2000, the “natural born Citizen” issue was essentially dormant and ignored since the time of the first usurpation of the United States presidency by “President” Chester A. Arthur back in 1881.  Nonetheless, Dorf’s failure to address, even dismissively,  Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 is surprising in a (sniff…) Columbia Law School Vice Dean and Professor of Constitutional Law.

On the other hand, Professor Turley cannot be so excused.  He was around in 2008 when the original questions surrounding Barack Hussein Obama Jr.’s eligibility began swirling.  Indeed, in 2008, he authored an article concluding that, as to Mr. Obama, the likelihood is that since he could not be proven to be ineligible to the presidency, we may as well just accept that as fact.  Unless he has changed his mind since 2008, he likely remains convinced that Mr. Obama is – or would likely be held by the Supreme Court to be – a “natural born Citizen.”

Interestingly, Turley’s views on the issue, at least as articulated in his 2008 post above, are based largely on the “political,” “cultural” and/or “institutional” preference and tendency of the Supreme Court to avoid rather than squarely address or engage in constitutional confrontations “except in the most unavoidable circumstances.”  Respectfully, when the Founders drafted and ratified the Constitution, they were guided by principles intended to establish a republic – not a direct democracy – governed by the rule of law rather than one guided by fleeting political, cultural and institutional factors.  That’s why they allowed for amendments.  Stated otherwise, expediency and judicial avoidance of “tough questions” were not on the minds of the Founders when they drafted the Constitution and created a “Supreme Court.”

Memo to Professor Turley: does not the constitutional eligibility of the person who would be Commander-in-Chief of the planet’s most powerful military, with access to the codes for the “nuclear football,” constitute an issue of sufficient gravity to warrant examination and either ratification or refutation by the Supreme Court?  Follow-up memo: given your criticisms of the “narrowing” of the standards to establish “standing” to litigate issues of this nature, would it not make sense for the Supreme Court to take on a live “case or controversy” addressing these issues sooner rather than later?

Moreover, would it not be prudent for such a move to take place in order to put the issue to rest, instead of allowing deeply deceptive memoranda and reports of the Congressional Research Service and scholarly magazine articles by other “experts” to establish flawed governmental policy?  And would this not be consistent with your belief that a broader application of the rules of “standing” should be reinstituted?

In this regard, Professor Turley also laments the reality that “[s]tanding has been so narrowed in the last few decades that there are now some constitutional provisions that seem unenforceable in court for lack of anyone with standing.”  Really?  Parts of the foundational document of the Nation are now “off-limits” because either no litigant can be found with the requisite “particularized stake in the outcome” (i.e., standing) to get in the front door of the Supreme Court?  Seriously?

In fact, if the highly unlikely “ticket” of Hillary Clinton at the top, with Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. at the bottom, emerged, there is one person who would plainly have – even now – a “particularized stake in the outcome” of a case challenging the eligibility of Obama as vice-president should he even be included on a post-Biden implosion ticket: Donald J. Trump.  The opportunities for interrogatories, requests for admissions and depositions of Obama would be, shall we say…, juicy.

But as Jonathan Turley predicts, it’s not going to happen, at least not with a Supreme Court as currently constituted.  Too bad.  That would be a case for the ages…, no?

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Here is something I sent to Congressional offices a few years ago. I was told everything I send them is kept in their computer system. I hope that it is true……This is one example of hundreds of communications which were ignored or responded to with a meaningless form letter. This is one is from 5-16-2016 before Donald Trump was elected.
    My letter to Congress:

    “My latest internet post on this subject is below. It is my response to the many who ask, “Why does Congress do nothing to stop Obama and why are they so opposed, even the GOP, to Donald Trump?”

    This is the post:

    Basically, it’s because they fear a Trump presidency and a Trump Department of Justice would reveal and have acted on the complete truth about Barry’s usurpation of the presidency and Congress failure in 2009 to prevent the ineligible, identity fraud con-artist from becoming the putative president. The moment Obama was sworn in back in 2009 it became Congress job number one to insure he remained officially a legitimate president. If the truth were exposed, Congress would have to explain why they gave America’s government and her military to the enemy….treason at the highest possible level. Leadership of Congress directed that Obama’s ineligibility would not be looked into and neither would any other evidence, (identity fraud), that could jeopardize his official legitimacy as the putative president. They did this to protect themselves, and their immediate goal is still to get Barry over the finish line in 2017 officially considered a legitimate president. They are involved in a crime, “too big to prosecute”. I was told by a Congressional staff member in 2009 that, “”Leadership of Congress had a meeting and decided not to pursue the issue of Obama’s eligibility”. Not too much of a surprise that Pelosi and Reid decided this would not be looked into.

    If you look at the actions and inaction of the Republicans in Congress from 2009 on it is easy to see they are lying for and obfuscating for Obama’s legitimacy and refusing to act on anything Obama does…..no impeachment and no investigation……..because they fear the truth and the prison sentences or worse that would come with that truth…..and, Congress already knows the truth. This has been obvious all the way back to 2009 and they are still digging in to reach their goal. Obama will be able to do anything he wants for the rest of his term with no fear of being stopped…….just as he has up until now. It is personal with Congress and they will do anything to maintain the charade of legitimacy they have built around Barry.

    Trump represents an unknown that Congress does not want to live with as America’s president. The truth is the enemy of Congress.

    To whoever reads this, thank you.”

    Bob68…..that is one of hundreds of similar communications between 2009 up until today….

  2. 1). “No person except a Natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President”.-Article II, Sec. 1, Clause 5.,USConst. 2). “No person constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.-12th Amendment, USConst. 3). “N0 person shall…hold any office, civil or military,under the United States…who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution of the United States,shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.-14th Amendment. 4). “No person shall be elected to the Office of the President more than twice…”-22nd Amendment.

    By having usurped the Presidency by fraud, during time of war, twice, Obama is guilty of treason and espionage against the USA. Furthermore, he wasn’t eligible the first two terms and he STILL isn’t eligible now.

  3. “Obama” was not a natural born American citizen the first time around, and nothing has changed since. With the possible exception that, as time has gone by, the cowardly and complicit U. S. Supreme Court has refused to hear cases brought to it on the subject.
    Chief Justice John Roberts Jr evidently thinks so. He swore in “Obama,” privately if I remember correctly, on a Koran He was aware of the controversy surrounding “Obama’s” birth and stolen and forged IDs. He had to know that “Obama” was/is an undocumented, most likely foreign-born, impostor chosen by, trained by, and controlled by the CIA and other NWO and rich left-leaning globalists and communists.
    As far as I am concerned, Chief “Justice” Roberts should step aside and/or be impeached and removed from the bench. Criminal charges against him would not be out of the question. Wasn’t it Malta where Roberts went several years ago to contemplate his guilt? I guess he convinced himself that he was the next closest thing to a god, and thereafter he continued to serve on the High Court for life!
    May the real God help us and bless us in this unprecedented time of need, if it’s not too late. What I’m telling you is the SICK TREASONOUS TRUTH. Why do we, ordinary Americans, have to bow before the self-serving and corrupt elected and appointed officials in our federal government. Why is it that we are expected to stand by silently and live by their lies and greed? Why is it that very few, if any, fellow Americans will read this comment and pass it on?

  4. Simile time:

    “Hail Mary”?. “Hail Virgin Mary”, instead.

    The POTUS presidency of the Korrupt Kenyan Kandidate (KKK) did happen, albeit illegally, but the KKK did not achieve his presidency through an instance of Divine intervention as in Jesus’ mother’s conception, rather lots of hoodwinking the U.S. Constitution and the electorate.

    Because KKK’s illegal two terms (22nd Amendment now in-play), his presidential virginity cannot be brought back, therefore the 12th Amendment says “NO”.