Paul R. Hollrah
The Electoral College Has Failed
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
"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
It would create a constitutional crisis of colossal proportions...
perhaps even civil war. This could have been avoided if the Democratic
electors in the Electoral College had done the job they were elected to
do. This matter should never have been allowed to reach its present
state, just twelve days before Obama’s planned inauguration. The
Electoral College has failed us.