Paul R. Hollrah

The Electoral College Has Failed
January 12, 2009
 

As the Founding Fathers debated in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, they struggled with the questions of how to design a lasting republic for the people of the newly independent colonies.

In an age long before radio and television, and years before the electric telegraph, when the three-century-old Gutenberg press was still the state of the art in printing; the Founding Fathers were haunted by fears of political intrigue... a carryover from centuries of cross-border cabals, palace revolts, political intrigues, and revolution on the European continent.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68,

“These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

As the delegates struggled with the question of how to permanently insulate the leaders of the executive branch of government from the undue influence of foreign governments, the answer they arrived at was the Electoral College.

In justifying the creation of the Electoral College, Hamilton wrote,

“It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose...

“It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicated an investigation.”

The Electoral College has served the nation well during the first 205 years of its existence. It began to fail us following the 1996 election campaign, in which the Clinton-Gore campaign received untold sums of money from the Peoples Republic of China and the Indonesian Lippo Group. This information was successfully kept from the American people and was not widely known until well after the Electoral College met in December 1996. Accordingly, Democratic electors may be excused for not knowing the depth or breadth of foreign influence in the Clinton administration.

Then, in 2004, the Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry. While claiming to be a Vietnam War hero, Kerry refused to release 100 pages of his military records relating to the circumstances surrounding his discharge from the U.S. Navy. Had it been learned conclusively that Kerry was dishonorably discharged in 1971 or 1972, would Democratic electors... veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Desert Storm... have cast their votes for him? We’ll never know.

Now comes Barack Hussein Obama, a man of mixed parentage... born to an American mother, an African father (a citizen of Kenya and a British subject), and subsequently adopted at age 6 by an Indonesian stepfather... who became the presumptive president-elect of the United States on November 4, 2008.

However, as certain as his lineage may be, his citizenship is just as uncertain. A number of details of Obama’s life have raised serious questions as to his eligibility to serve as President. Article II, Section 1(4) of the U.S. Constitution says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

So the question arises, is Barack Obama a “natural born” citizen? Putting that question into context, WorldNetDaily (WND) columnist Janet Porter asks in a January 6 column, “What if an impostor from another country ran for the presidency and won? What if the media blocked any news of his birthplace and citizenship? What if the media censorship even blocked paid advertising which tried to expose it?

“What if no one had the courage to challenge or verify it? What if he was inaugurated illegally? What if the military had to answer to a commander in chief who was illegitimate? What if every law he signed was invalid? And finally, “What if it all happened on our watch?”

Sufficient doubt has been raised about Barack Obama’s eligibility that public opinion polls are beginning to reflect that doubt. According to a recent unscientific poll conducted by America Online, as reported by WND, only 41% of those polled felt that Obama’s citizenship status was not an issue. In just two days that number fell to 39% and the most recent poll shows that some 55% believe that the issue has merit.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in venues across the country alleging that Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement. Some plaintiffs allege that Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he claims, but in a maternity hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, as his grandmother, a half brother, and a half sister in Kenya insist. They claim to have been present at his birth on August 4, 1961. If that is the case, then Obama was born with dual citizenship, which he has never officially renounced and which would make him ineligible to serve as president.

Others allege that, when Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather in 1967, he became a citizen of Indonesia and that he failed to have his U.S. citizenship reinstated when he reached the age of 18. It is the question of his Indonesian citizenship which causes some to ask how he could have traveled to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20, when passport restrictions would have prohibited him from traveling to that country on an American passport. Obama’s travel to Pakistan would have been permitted had he been traveling under an Indonesian passport.

What lends credence to these charges is the fact that Obama refuses to sign an order making his birth documents available for examination. Instead, he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, litigating these issues in court. So what is he hiding? The military reservist who would be required to return to active duty at the call of a President Obama has a right to know if the man who is putting his life in danger is not a usurper.

It is precisely this sort of dilemma that the Electoral College was designed to prevent. In the period between November 4 and December 13, when the Electoral College met, the Democratic members of the Electoral College were informed numerous times that Obama’s eligibility was in question. It was their responsibility to satisfy themselves that their candidate was, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen and met all of the qualifications as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. To the best of our knowledge, none of them asked the question.

On Thursday, January 8, Vice President Dick Cheney announced to the members of the Senate that Barack Hussein Obama had received 365 electoral votes, 95 more than are required to be elected. But if that is a sham, if it is ultimately learned that Obama is not, in fact, eligible to serve, then every one of his acts as president, all of the bills signed into law, all of his executive orders, all of his executive and judicial appointments, and all of their acts and decisions, become null and void.