BORN IN THE USA? Attorney links eligibility, health care challenges

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25,2010 | Bob Unruh

[Elderberry]

What President Obama has described as a monumental victory – the passage of health-care reform legislation – could be linked in court to the ongoing controversy over his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office. Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California – today provided to WND a court filing in which she asks that her eligibility challenge be joined with a case that contests the constitutionality of the Democrats' massive health-care plan. Taitz argues, "H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, who … never proved his legitimacy to the presidency. Therefore the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to sign it." Her e-mail documentation indicated she filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under federal court rules. She's asking to link her case and the case brought by a long list of state attorneys general against the health-care law, Florida et al vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Taitz is suing Obama "in regards to damages suffered by her" as part of an amended complaint filed in federal court in Washington.

[opentalk]

She is correct but she is far too emotional

She would not help this situation, she comes with a stigma the press will exploit. Any of the states, that bring up the issue would probably have standing and reasonable cause to pursue this.

[Frantzie]

Anyone who opposes the Dems gets stigmatized immediately. This is Alinsky smearing - McCain is using it against conservatives too.

I do think if we win Congress or sooner that eligibility has to become an issue. He is destroying America.

[Vendome]

Fortunately, it hasn’t even been funded. Can’t wait to see how this works out in appropriations. Might become another No Child Left Behind. Still a working idea, just not funded.

Also, for fun, another poster wrote an excellent essay on this.

It is lengthy and takes about 10 minutes to read If you care to read it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2476713/posts?page=145#145

[rxsid]

"NO! NO! NO!

This worries me tremendously!!!!!!!!

We need to focus on healthcare! This isn’t about getting Obama thrown out of office! That battle was a nonstarter! If we pollute the case we have with healthcare with other issues and show up in court with tinfoil hats, we’ll be stuck with socialized medicine forever!!!!

Obama legitimacy or lack thereof is not an argument against Obamacare. We need to focus on the Constitutional challenges to the healthcare bill, not the man who signed it!!!! STUPID!!!!

How can that legislation be signed into law by a USURPER?

Or, are you suggesting that anyone born the subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England (or any other foreign country) is and should be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. and thus eligible to command our armed forces?

[rxsid]

Dr. Taitz's court filling, and some snippets from it, can be found here:

First Amended Complaint - Taitz v Obama (filed 3/22/2010)

[Shadowfax]

I’m saying that the cases that are trying to remove Obama have no traction and they have very little possibility of succeeding. Let’s focus on the task at hand. I agree with you in principle, but focusing on something that makes us all look like a bunch of loonies isn’t going to help us get this thing overturned!!!

[rxsid]

Enforcing the Constitution (all of it) should never make anyone look like a loon.

What other parts of the Constitution are you willing to "let slide", other than Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 simply because there is no "traction" to defend it?

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born). Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative.

[Shadowfax]

I’m not willing to let any of the Constitution slide. But when you don’t have a case......

You have to pick your battles. I don’t think we should be trying to tie the Constitutionality of the New Deal and Medicare into this case either. Let’s get our freedoms won back and launch a seperate battle to see the birth certificate.

Seriously bad strategy to muddy the waters combining with a lawsuit that keeps getting dismissed.

[MilspecRob]

Orly never fails to disappoint me.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

If Obama has spent more than $5,000 on this issue, I will be stunned.

[rxsid]

Your missing the point. This isn’t about the birth certificate.

Right now, there is an (alleged) POTUS, commading our military and signing “legislation” into law & signing treaties with other country’s who was BORN the subject of a FOREIGN gov’t. Even HE admits this.

Health care is a massive monstrosity. However, having an unconstitutional POTUS is even bigger than that, or any other single piece of legislation. Would you be OK with an illegal alien being “pushed” into the office of the Presidency? Of course not. Why not? Simple. Not Constitutionally qualified. Guess what. Neither is Barry.

There is no doubt that in the beginning, NOBODY in a position of power to “do” anything about this was going to stick their neck out on the line to “bring down” the first black president (who really is more white and arabic than black), no matter what he did.

Things are changing now that his popularity is in the toilet.

This “battle” is indeed a most difficult one. But so is getting rid of Barrycare. Just watch.

The country has fallen far from the intent of the Constitution in many areas. Because it will be difficult to get back to were we should be doesn’t mean it’s a battle not worth fighting.

If the office of the Presidency can be successfully usurped, and the precedent set, it’s likely to happen again.

Want to stop ALL of his madness, including Barrycare, go strait to the root and expose him as the usurper he is.

Remember, it took over 2 years for Watergate to eventually bring Nixon down.

I choose to fight for ALL of the Constitution.

[Shadowfax]

Well, I hope that others have more sense than you do. Your strategy for trying to go for it all will lose the battle and the war.

The courts are not listening challenges to Obama’s legitimacy. Fact. Trying to attach that issue to the healthcare issue won’t help. The argument that healthcare is unconstitutional because Obama’s illegitimate will just get thrown out of court like all the other challenges to his legitimacy.

You may choose to interpret my argument as meaning that you care more about the Constitution than I do. That reasoning is stupid, in my opinion. I hardly think it betrays great love for the Constitution to follow a strategy that may appeal to principle but will ultimately fail, result in the permanent establishment of socialized medicine, and irrepairably harm the very thing you’re trying to protect.

[real_patriotic_american]

Go Orly go!

[rxsid]

Then by all means, ignore the presidency being usurped. I mean, why not let the precedent be set. It’s an uphill, really tough battle you know. After-all, who cares about A2,S1,C5 anyway. Long live the Queen. Er, ah...I mean King. /s

[Shadowfax]

Wow. You’re really trying very hard to misunderstand me, aren’t you?

I didn’t say ignore the legitimacy issue. I’m saying that since it has a poor probability at best of succeeding in any court of law, don’t sink the court battle against healthcare by bringing the legitimacy argument into it. It’d be really stupid to try to win the healthcare argument by basing it on an assertion that no judge appears to be accepting for a second.

By all means, try to get Obama thrown out on the birth certificate thing. Try for the next 3 years. It’s possible, but we probably won’t be able to do it. In the meantime, let’s try to win the healthcare battle by not making stupid mistakes.

Ok?

[Non-Sequitur]

Attorney Orly Taitz – now a candidate for secretary of state in California – today provided to WND a court filing in which she asks that her eligibility challenge be joined with a case that contests the constitutionality of the Democrats' massive health-care plan.

Because all her other cases have gone so well...</sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

Whack-a-mole time.

[Non-Sequitur]

This crazy broad just might defeat this health care bill.

Betcha the crazy broad doesn't.

[rxsid]

If the State's Attny's General think it's in the best interest of "their" case, then they will include it. If they don't, they wont.

Even if the eligibility issue isn't attached to the current h.c. lawsuit(s), THOSE lawsuits will undoubtedly be an uphill battle as well. I hope that IF they fail initially, you don't give up hope on those as well.

OK?