A Constitutional Conundrum

I’m sure, by now, many of you are familiar with the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. For those of you who may not live in America, or those who simply may not remember it, let’s refresh our memories.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people… A simple three word phrase (yes Mr. Biden, just three) that defines the very foundation of the laws and principles our country was founded on. The United States of America is the people. It was founded of the people, by the people, for the people. Without the people, there would be no United States.

Our Constitution is a living, breathing document which sets forth the guidelines by which all of our subsequent laws are based. We know who writes the laws, who passes the laws, and who interprets the laws, but exactly who has standing to uphold our Constitution? Is that a power limited to the courts, our Congress, or our President? Shouldn’t we, the people, have the right to question the constitutionality of a matter? Apparently not.


So, who does have the standing to uphold our Constitution?

According to U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, the judge presiding over the case of Berg v. Obama, “voters do not have standing”.

Philip Berg, an attorney from Pennsylvania, filed suit questioning whether Barack Obama is qualified to run for President of the United States of America. There are questions about the true location of Mr. Obama’s birth, and to date neither he nor his campaign have produced a single (non-altered in Photoshop) copy of his birth certificate.

Recently, the court ordered Mr. Obama to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate. The deadline passed with no proof of his birth being delivered, and in the normal course of most court proceedings, the court would have ruled in Mr. Berg’s favor. But Judge Surrick did not.

Judge Surrick ruled that ordinary citizens cannot sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of that office.

Let’s refresh. Article II, Section I states,

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.

Judge Surrick continued by stating that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency”. In other words, he decided that you and I have no standing to uphold the Constitution.

According to Judge Surrick, citizens don’t have this right, voters (also citizens mind you) don’t have this right, and party members (citizens as well) don’t either. But if Congress (comprised of citizens) decides we should have this right, then they would have to pass new laws to grant us that ability. So, if we don’t have it, who does have this right? Our government (ie: citizens) is comprised of the people, by the people, and for the people. Who, but the people, should have this right?

So again, I ask. If not the people, exactly who does have standing to uphold our Constitution?

Philip Berg is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (also comprised of citizens), and I look forward to seeing their response. There will be no tap dancing around that one. Will they agree that American citizens have the standing to uphold their own Constitution or will they claim that others (probably citizens too) are better suited toward making that decision, and if so, who?