Enough's enough: Obama has conceded ineligibility

WND ^ | SEPTEMBER 12, 2010 | Joseph Farah

[jamese777]

In any case, hero or associate, you choose to be in company with Supreme Court justices when “brought” to justice.

Happy judgment day. Perhaps you will be permitted to select which members of the “honorable” court you want to be judged along with...but I don’t think it works that way.

BTW, I didn’t realize you count the Supreme Court as being in the “political” arena. I thought they were to be separated from that by their lifetime appointments so that they could be free to rule according to law without political calculations. Of course, we both realize they don’t, which is a huge problem currently leading to rapid erosion of the rule of law in our society.

Also, I think winning debates will be of small value on Judgment Day, but making correct moral decisions and living unselfish moral lives will be of extreme importance.

My “heroes” are not necessarily those who perform an occasional (or solitary) heroic act, but those who live heroic (self-denying) lives. Like your parents who keep their commitments to raise their kids, even though handicapped, and do so with love at tremendous personal expense.

---

“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”—Matthew 7:1
I prefer to leave predictions on what will happen to whom on Judgement Day to a much higher authority. Those decisions are made way above my pay grade.

Back here on earth, Supreme Court Justices (and all federal Judges) are nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate, that puts them squarely in the political arena since the judiciary is the constitutionally mandated “third branch of government.” Aren’t we discussing whether or not the Supreme Court should rule on whether or not Barack Obama is legitimately the president? That sounds awfully “political” to me.

A Roman Catholic gentleman named John Roberts (who is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) was the person who administered the Oath of Office to Barack Hussein Obama II, on two occasions. Administering that Oath is the final constitutionally mandated act in determining who is the President of the United States.

You have your categories of heroes and I have mine. In my humble opinion that seems appropriate since we both live in a free society.

[srweaver]

You posted: “Aren’t we discussing whether or not the Supreme Court should rule on whether or not Barack Obama is legitimately the president? That sounds awfully “political” to me.”

---

Actually, it doesn’t sound political to me, it seems a mere matter of Obama meeting the constitutional/legal qualifications for office...regardless of political calculations or consequences.

The oath by Roberts (or any justice), in and of itself does not create a legitimate president of the United States, absent other constitutional qualification. Are you asserting that it does?

[srweaver]

You posted: “Aren’t we discussing whether or not the Supreme Court should rule on whether or not Barack Obama is legitimately the president? That sounds awfully “political” to me.”

---

Actually, it doesn’t sound political to me, it seems a mere matter of Obama meeting the constitutional/legal qualifications for office...regardless of political calculations or consequences.

The oath by Roberts (or any justice), in and of itself does not create a legitimate president of the United States, absent other constitutional qualification. Are you asserting that it does?

[jamese777]

Actually, it doesn’t sound political to me, it seems a mere matter of Obama meeting the constitutional/legal qualifications for office...regardless of political calculations or consequences.

The oath by Roberts (or any justice), in and of itself does not create a legitimate president of the United States, absent other constitutional qualification. Are you asserting that it does?

---

The constitutionally mandated (12th Amendment) process for becoming president is: (1)receive a majority of the electoral college votes;(2)have those votes counted and certified by the president of the Senate at a joint session of Congress (in 2008 that was Vice President Dick Cheney); (3)overcome any written objections filed by any two or more members of Congress to the certification of the electoral college vote(in 2008 there were no written objections) and (4)take the presidential oath of office.

As US District Court Judge David O. Carter said in his judicial opinion dismissing an Obama eligibility lawsuit:
“There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—removal for any reason—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—”Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack Obama, et. al., October 29, 2009

[srweaver]

So according to your interpretation, and the opinion of David Carter, the court has NO legal jurisdiction once a president is sworn in even if he/she afterword is proven to be 1) under thirty-five years of age, 2) born in another country to foreign parents, and 3) an illegal immigrant who snuck into the country three years before his/her election.

Correct?

Also, how do you interpret section 3 of the 20th Amendment, particularly “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” (for the office).

Isn’t it nice how the courts said before the election “our hands are tied,” because no one has been injured by an unqualified candidate who has not been elected? Then after the election they say it is not a legal question, and beyond our jurisdiction to take action, and no American has standing to question the qualifications of a duly elected president.

[srweaver]

As US District Court Judge David O. Carter said in his judicial opinion dismissing an Obama eligibility lawsuit:

“There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office.
____

Actually, several courts in several different cases DECLINED to take a role, saying WAIT until after the election when an injury HAS taken place and then come see us.

Must be nice having it both ways!

Where can I find a job where I get paid for making excuses for NOT doing my job? (Not that I really want to.)

[jamese777]

Actually, several courts in several different cases DECLINED to take a role, saying WAIT until after the election when an injury HAS taken place and then come see us.

Must be nice having it both ways!

Where can I find a job where I get paid for making excuses for NOT doing my job? (Not that I really want to.)

---

I have tried to follow closely every Obama eligibility lawsuit, all 73 of them at last count and I know of no court that said anything remotely akin to “wait until an actual injury has occurred.” Could you point me to such a ruling? The vast majority of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility have been dismissed for lack of legal standing to sue. In laymen’s terms, the wrong plaintiffs were trying to sue.

Just because you say that the Courts aren’t doing their job doesn’t make it so. Judges tend to take “separation of powers” very seriously, as should citizens who care about the Constitution.

It is the job of 50 state plus one District of Columbia chief election officials to determine each candidate’s eligibility to be on the ballot in each state and in the federal district.

And remember that any one US Senator and any one member of the House of Representatives could have challenged the certification of Obama’s electoral votes and there would have had to be an investigation before Obama could be sworn in. Out of 535 members of Congress, there were no challenges.

If Obama committed election fraud by getting on the ballot illegitimately, Grand Juries can investigate that allegation. Grand juries have the power to subpoena Obama’s original records and compel witnesses to testify. There have been no Grand Jury investigations for election fraud.

[jamese777]

So according to your interpretation, and the opinion of David Carter, the court has NO legal jurisdiction once a president is sworn in even if he/she afterword is proven to be 1) under thirty-five years of age, 2) born in another country to foreign parents, and 3) an illegal immigrant who snuck into the country three years before his/her election.

Correct?

Also, how do you interpret section 3 of the 20th Amendment, particularly “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” (for the office).

Isn’t it nice how the courts said before the election “our hands are tied,” because no one has been injured by an unqualified candidate who has not been elected? Then after the election they say it is not a legal question, and beyond our jurisdiction to take action, and no American has standing to question the qualifications of a duly elected president.

---

Correct.

Since the late 19th Century the United States has operated under the “de facto officer” doctrine and that legal precedent states: “The defacto officer doctrine confers validity upon the acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. (Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).
In my humble opinion, the constitutional way to remove an ineligible, unqualified president is via impeachment and trial and conviction in the Senate. Another way is via a Grand Jury investigation with an indictment handed down for a crime that would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor which would force a president’s resignation. Being named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the Watergate Grand Jury cooked Richard Nixon’s goose and he was forced to resign the presidency.

I interpret Section 3 of the 20th Amendment as follows: I look at the context of the entire section which begins: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.”

A president-elect then “qualifies” by not dying or becoming so incapacited that she or he cannot assume the office on Inauguration Day.

The Section is sufficiently vague and has never been challenged in Court so that other interpretations of how a president-elect “qualifies” are certainly worth entertaining but when a President-Elect stops being a President-Elect and takes the oath of office, the 20th Amendment, Section 3 becomes moot.

Here’s another ruling by a different federal judge in an Obama eligibility lawsuit which challenged whether Obama could send a member of the US Army to deployment in Iraq:
“The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961”).

A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”
–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Captain Connie Rhodes v Colonel Thomas MacDonald (Fort Benning garrison commander), Barack Obama, and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, et. al., September 16, 2009

[srweaver]

From your post: “It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.”
______

Only the courts did not allow discovery to those who pursued it.

The courts are wearing no clothes, and eventually some child is going to need to lead the way and just say it, instead of pretending, with the “adults,” otherwise.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

My responses to jamese777 have been pragmatic rather than legal because I’m no lawyer. Most effecitive anti-scandal response I’ve seen in a while. He wrote:

[quote]

The state of Hawaii has an FAQ on the Obama Certification of Live Birth. Hawaii law allows for Obama’s original birth records to be subpoenaed without his permission by anyone with a court order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. It has always surprised me that no enterprising prosecuting attorney has sought a subpoena for the original records as a part of a forgery investigation.

[unquote]

[jamese777]

Only the courts did not allow discovery to those who pursued it.

The courts are wearing no clothes, and eventually some child is going to need to lead the way and just say it, instead of pretending, with the “adults,” otherwise.

---

The courts dismissed CIVIL lawsuits prior to the discovery phase of any proceeding due to plaintiffs who were deemed ineligible to sue. Had the Republican National Committee sued, had the McCain-Palin campaign sued, or had John McCain sued in his own name, it is very likely that THOSE plaintiffs would have been granted legal standing to sue. Judge David O. Carter came near to granting standing to Allan Keyes but Keyes had no possible chance to be elected since his name was only on the ballot in a few states and therefore Keyes couldn’t demonstrate sufficient injury from Obama’s election.

There are NO issues of legal standing in a CRIMINAL investigation by a Grand Jury with subpoena power. No prosecuting attorney in the nation has convened a grand jury to investigate the Obama eligibility issue yet any of them could take that issue on and subpoena Obama’s records.

[srweaver]

You posted:

“Had the Republican National Committee sued, had the McCain-Palin campaign sued, or had John McCain sued in his own name, it is very likely that THOSE plaintiffs would have been granted legal standing to sue. Judge David O. Carter came near to granting standing to Allan Keyes but Keyes had no possible chance to be elected since his name was only on the ballot in a few states and therefore Keyes couldn’t demonstrate sufficient injury from Obama’s election.”
___

Basically, you are saying that only privileged classes of people are “potentially” (to the point of allowing discovery) being injured by a constitutionally unqualified individual running for/serving as president.

That president’s qualifications/actions are none of my business as a private citizen. This means justice is no longer blind and I no longer qualify for equal protection under the law. I have no recourse, under the law, to challenge his eligibility/validity in the courts even though his actions and the bills he signs into law greatly affect (injure) my person and property on a daily basis.

Correct?

[jamese777]

You posted:
“Had the Republican National Committee sued, had the McCain-Palin campaign sued, or had John McCain sued in his own name, it is very likely that THOSE plaintiffs would have been granted legal standing to sue. Judge David O. Carter came near to granting standing to Allan Keyes but Keyes had no possible chance to be elected since his name was only on the ballot in a few states and therefore Keyes couldn’t demonstrate sufficient injury from Obama’s election.”

Basically, you are saying that only privileged classes of people are “potentially” (to the point of allowing discovery) being injured by a constitutionally unqualified individual running for/serving as president.

That president’s qualifications/actions are none of my business as a private citizen. This means justice is no longer blind and I no longer qualify for equal protection under the law. I have no recourse, under the law, to challenge his eligibility/validity in the courts even though his actions and the bills he signs into law greatly affect (injure) my person and property on a daily basis.

Correct?

---

No, what you wrote above bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I am saying.

You do not understand the legal concept of standing. Let’s say that there is a two car accident with one driver and no passengers in both cars. You are at a corner and you observe the accident but you suffer no injuries, you are only an observer. Should you be able to sue either party in the accident from your position as an observer?

The fact that those who oppose Obama on grounds of ineligiblity have not been able to produce a plaintiff with standing to sue says it all. When there is a class action lawsuit, the attorneys ALWAYS find persons who suffered actual injury. Its no different in the Obama eligibility debate. The prime person who suffered DIRECT and TANGIBLE injury from an allegedly ineligible Obama being elected is the only other person to receive Electoral College votes and the only person to stand a real chance of being elected: John McCain. It has NOTHING to do with being privileged, average citizens are granted standing to sue every day of the week. It has to do with who suffered direct (not indirect) injury IN AN ELECTION.

A Reagan conservative, appointed as a federal judge by Ronald Reagan himself was almost pleading with an Obama eligibility lawyer to find a plaintiff with standing to sue. The Judge is the Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Royce C. Lamberth.

Judge Lamberth wrote in his decision on an Obama eligibility lawsuit, and I quote him: “To bring a case in federal court a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so, which is essentially a question of whether “the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute. . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). There are three elements that form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (Scalia, J.). If any one of these three requirements is not met, a plaintiff does not have standing.

The first of these is that the plaintiff must suffer an injury in fact. Id. That is an injury must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Injuries which are general, rather than particularized, are not sufficient to create standing. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id. at 573-74. This is precisely the sort of injury that Ms. Taitz alleges and as such she does not have standing to pursue her claim. Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.’

Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.2 See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).—US Chief District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Royce C. Lamberth, April 14, 2010 (Taitz v Obama).

---

If you want “discovery” involving Obama’s eligibility, his birth records and other records, get a judge to issue a subpoena as a part of a CRIMINAL, not civil investigation.
Obama does not need to even be charged with a crime in order to simply INVESTIGATE his eligibility.

[WileyC]

All it would take is for a state to require a BC for all presidential candidates to appear on their ballots.

How about THAT for an October surprise? Put that requirement in about, oh, two weeks before the official filing date. WAY too late to get a new candidate and have a truly remarkable landslide against a no-show candidate. Many dems ONLY vote in presidential elections and may stay home in droves.

[BlackVeil]

There is definitely more to this story than meets the eye.

I totally agree.

It seems that the fix is in - all elite insitutions, such as the Courts, and also all the senior Republican politicians, are silent on this issue. They won't touch it.

And the missing birth certificate is not the only disconcerting aspect to Obama. He has a whole weird lack of a past - the way that no one remembers him from his student days - the way no old girlfriends have surfaced to blab on about their first date ... all that stuff which always happens when someone becomes famous. With him, there is nothing - an echoing silence.