Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
The Justice Department is urging a federal court to toss out a lawsuit in which prominent birthers' attorney Orly Taitz is challenging President Barack Obama's Constitutional qualifications to be president.
In a motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif., government lawyers did not directly rebut the conspiracy theory Taitz propounds that Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claims and as asserted by Hawaiian officials as well as contemporary newspaper birth notices. Instead, the federal attorneys argued that the suit is inherently flawed because such disputes can't be resolved in court and because the dozens of plaintiffs can't show they are directly injured by Obama's presence in office.
"It is clear, from the text of the Constitution, and the relevant statutory law implementing the Constitution’s textual commitments, that challenges to the qualifications of a candidate for President can, in the first instance, be presented to the voting public before the election, and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in the Congress," Assistant United States Attorneys Roger West and David DeJute wrote. "Therefore, challenges such as those purportedly raised in this case are committed, under the Constitution, to the electors, and to the Legislative branch."
The birthers' suit claims that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia and "possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief.”
Lieutenant Jason Freese and some other plaintiffs in the case claim they have a real injury because they are serving in the military commander by Obama, the alleged usurper. However, West and DeJute say that argument is too speculative.
"The injuries alleged by Plaintiff Freese and the other military Plaintiffs herein, are not particularized as to them, but, rather, would be shared by all members of the military and is an inadequate basis on which to establish standing," the government lawyers wrote.
Another plaintiff in the suit, Alan Keyes, is a three-time, longshot presidential candidate who ran most recently in 2008. Yet another is Gail Lightfoot, an ultra-longshot vice presidential candidate in 2008. The DOJ argues that they were not directly aggrieved by Obama's election because they never had a mathematical chance of winning.
"The [lawsuit] does not allege, nor could it allege, that any of these Plaintiffs were even on the ballot in enough states in the year 2008 to gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidential election," the motion states.
The Justice Department brief takes a few shots at the wackiness of the birthers, accusing them of trafficking in "innuendo" and advancing "a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act."
Those arguments notwithstanding, the DOJ lawyers were pretty kind to the birthers and to Taitz, since the filings in the case are replete with spelling errors, among others. Taitz submitted another purported foreign birth certificate for Obama last week in a filing labeled, "Kenian Hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Obama."
The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. There's a strong chance the session will devolve into something of a sideshow since a couple of plaintiffs in the case are now in a dispute with Taitz and have sought to bring in a different attorney to represent them in the case.
I would also like to apologize for combining the general ping to the thread with a specific post to you.
I can see how that created some confusion.
Sorry.
Are those your words there at Posts #175 and #184??? Perhaps you could explain them.
I'd say that others around here are far beyond that. If you think that he's un-qualified then prove it. Don't whine about "Well he won't give us his birth certificate" but instead go out and prove your case. Find evidence. You have done none of that, certainly nothing that will remotely stand up in court.
It is unusual that someone will go through so many contortions and distortions to deny the effort of those who merely want the truth to be publicized.
Distortions? For example.
lol....then why hasn't the question been decided by the Supreme Court before but instead sidestepped..you are real funny.
And you know that how????
Yes, Obama has finally ran into a judge and a former Marine who seriously takes his oath to defend the Constitution.
Guess on my day off I am just another slave or cog in the boss’ wheel.
Can't wait until tomorrow so I can back to work and posting.
Qualifications for the Office of President
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
http://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html
“...The case is set for a hearing Tuesday morning before Judge David Carter. ...”
no conflict of interest there, no siree, to say so would be prejudicial. (/sarcasm)
Readers can take that to mean what they want.
***Well, I take it to mean that you suggest nonsequitur is an issue-specific troll. The mods have recently come full circle on that issue. Originally the definition of “troll” was posted by a mod but even during that thread, they did not follow the definition. And JimRob even told me and LJ to stop troll hunting. But after months of putting up with the nonsequiterian nonsense from one troll, they finally told her to stop posting on these threads.
I’m glad to see the definition posted is the definition being used, finally.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
A fire that was too small to involve the local fire department (Said department keeps records of all calls. No record, no call/no call no record).
How convenient!
How conveeeeeeenient indeed...
You believe that the constitution cannot be enforced by people who took oaths to do so.
You believe that voters are not injured when their right to an honest election is abridged.
You asked repeat questions which have been answered dozens of times.
You believe that obfuscation is more important than seeking the truth.
You believe that free people do not have the right to know if their highest elected official is qualified for office.
How do I know you believe all of this? Simple, I have read your misguided and disruptive posts for the last few months in which you continuously challenge those who merely seek the truth.
I came here to correct one of your disciples. When you learn something or have something new to say or just want to admit you're just keeping an argument going, let me know and I may spend more than 5 minutes on your education.
I'm saying that if a prosecutor has a personal agenda, then using the law to achieve the outcome that he/she desires is not only morally wrong but also a danger to our civil liberties. The executive branch has a duty to uphold and enforce the law. Justice should be sought without regard to a personal agenda. If the law has been broken, someone should be prosecuted, tried, and sentenced or acquitted.
Now, as to your question regarding a plaintiff ... I will asssume for discussion's sake that you meant a civilian plaintiff and not the government. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Should a plaintiff search the law to find one that specifically fits his or her personal agenda? Yes and no. If a plaintiff is suing to be malicious, then no. If a plaintiff is suing because he/she genuinely believes he/she has a demonstrable injury, then yes. A plaintiff has the duty to prove his/her case. Stipulating which law has been violated is the only way to do so.
Excellent follow up question. I wasn't clear in my original post. This is a good discussion point.
Does Orly Taitz have an agenda? Clearly, she does. Do her plaintiffs believe they have truly incurred damages or injury? I believe they do.
I believe Obama is ineligible to hold the office of POTUS. I also cannot stand the man. He's a liar and a thug. If I filed suit, would it be malicious? If I'm being honest, probably so because I would love nothing more than see his sorry butt tossed out of office and prosecuted for fraud. That's why I want a U.S. Attorney to file suit and the SCOTUS to make a ruling on the legitimate question of first impression.
I keep countering NS's posts because I believe in truth and the constitution and for those who read his comments. His comments are so counter to my values as to be bewildering in my mind. I have never seen someone so determined to prevent us from knowing that which we have a right to know. Someone who will twist logic and the law to do so.
Occasionally, people like him will ask questions that can make our case stronger. We need that. But after 3-4 months I do question his motivation.
That's my fondest hope, that indeed we have found a judge and a Marine that is willing to live up to his oath.
In all of the days of this Republic, few indeed have seen a more fundamental issue unresolved: is the man occupying the highest office in the land eligible to serve in that position?
It would be so easy for the Kenyan Clown to release his vital records, for him to release his passports and visas, but he steadfastly refuses to do so. Instead, he stonewalls. That's not the behavior that one would expect of a man with such grave responsibilities, both his formal ones and his ineluctable duty to our posterity.
Well, for one, the US Treasury Dept. had no trouble whatsoever declaring that the bazillions of dollars worth of US Treasury instruments intercepted while being smuggled from Switzerland to Italy earlier this year were bogus.
They were able to do that by examining a fax transmittal from the Italian authorities.
Who defended bill clinton when he was charged with perjury, when he was impeached, when he was sued? It wasn’t the DOJ.
Gosh Mister, when everyone thinks I said something I didn't, I begin to think that maybe it's my poor communication skills.
Of course, one other possible interpretation is that one's attempts at dissimulation, twisting, hedging meanings, or outright lies is working...
You are late to the party and your link just plain sucks.
The US State dept does not even define NBC for Constitutional purposes.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
In his first term, President Bush had to use private lawyers after he was denied government lawyers as counsel. I don’t recall the issue or what was the reason. It should be explored to see if Obama’s DOJ lawyers can be thrown off the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.