Skip to comments.President's lawyers say eligibility question over
Posted on 09/15/2009 7:45:03 PM PDT by pissant
A team of taxpayer-supported lawyers arguing on behalf of President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office say not even the U.S. Supreme Court has any input into the question at this point, and such cases should be barred from the courts.
"The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office," said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama's eligibility under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen" in the White House.
That's because, the brief states, "the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress."
The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of a number of plaintiffs alleging that Obama is not constitutionally eligible for office. The case, being handled by attorney Orly Taitz, who now has been joined by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, has a tentative trial date of Jan. 26, 2010.
Before then, however, U.S. District Judge David Carter is scheduled to hear the government's demand that the case be thrown out.
The arguments submitted by acting U.S. Attorney George S. Cardona and assistant U.S. Attorneys Leon Weidman, Roger E. West and David A. DeJute, say the Constitution further specifies if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives has the authority to select the president, "and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates' qualifications."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Is that like Gore declaring the science is done, the debate on Global Warming is over? Yeah, look how well that worked out for Al...
Judge Carter might have something to say about this...
This sounds to me as though Bammie’s lawyers are saying he’s not an American citizen and there is nothing anything can do about it. Whadda country!
They are declaring a coup.
Why would they want to bar it from court?
>They are declaring a coup.
They are ASKING for Armed America to Use its Right to Alter or Abolish the Government. (See the Declaration of Independence)
That’s what they are saying. They could have saved thousands in expenses drafting this bilge and instead presented the court with the real BC or perhaps the COLB that FactChecck and the FR Obama kneepadders claim is legit. LOL
I don’t think a court can throw Obama out of office. Congress has to do that.
But a court can examine the facts, and rule to protect plantiffs.
Isn’t there an electoral college rep that has sued? As well as a presidential candidate?
I do expect the president’s goon squad to try to get an injunction from an appeals court or the ninth circuit. But that’s just going to have even more people signing the petition when they do that.
Wonder what laws they are using as precedent?
“Is that like Gore declaring the science is done, the debate on Global Warming is over? Yeah, look how well that worked out for Al...”
Beat me to it. Yea, I’m going to believe the president’s lawyers. I presume they got that position by cheating on their taxes - like the rest of the chief loon’s team.
If - and when - we find out the loon is illegitimate, we’ll have to take care of things our own way if the law will not.
Can you imagine the back door communications this man is getting from the WH and O’s minions? I hope he’s got a spine.
Only in his mind.
The list, ping
a Clinton appointee on the 9th Circus
Last time we did that we had close to 70 years of prosperity. A slight bump in the road over States Rights, then we had another 50 years before government got big enough to screw that trend up.
The last 80 or so years are a pale shadow of what we REALLY could have done had we just gotten government out of our way.
I'd be vacationing on Mars right now...
that what they are saying
Me, too. The US Marshals need to protect him 24/7.
I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
" 3. 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. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone challenge the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An Act doesnt cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a qualification of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to qualify. To infer that the lack of a specified qualification process means that stated eligibility qualifications for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
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.
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to qualify, a president elect must present evidence that he meets its requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.
If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has failed to qualify and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet qualified as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see Congress in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper qualifying documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
We've gotten farther with him than anyone else. Besides, the Clintonistas would love to see Barry burn.
The administration insists there’s nothing to see behind the curtain, But they are damned set against allowing anyone to take a peek.
Could he try to use the fact that the first, what 5-6 presidents weren’t US citizens?
I put nothing past these scum.
Isn’t Judge Carter a Marine? He’s got a spine,depends on what the law allows.
Ok so where is the birth certificate??? The obvious answer is that a valid birth certificate would show that the current white house occupant was not born in the United States. The answer is because of the stupidity of the white voters (if I vote for a black this will prove that I an not a racist so I am better than you) and the black racisim of the black voters we have been taken in by a black racist/socialist commander in thief. God Help the USA
That’s EXACTLY why they provided a “grandfather clause” to make themselves eligible; they set everything up so that we wouldn’t have this problem... but that’s what we get for ignoring them.
They are probably right from a legal standpoint. The only remedy is impeachment IMO which would never happen with a dem congress. Doesn’t matter. The American people deserve the facts - whatever they are. I guarantee that if Obama were shown to be ineligible a large segment of the public would cause the dems major problems. Obama would likely survive but the dems would take a major hit. But damn the politics. We deserve the truth - whatever that is.
So Obama’s lawyers can go to hell with that reasoning.
For what it’s worth, I think Kreep’s response is correct: These are essentially questions of fact and questions of fact are more suitably addressed in a court of law.
Now what to do after the questions of fact have been answered, is another story that may be best handled by Congress, if it comes to that.
Personally, I can’t imagine any person once found to be ineligible to hold office of the Presidency of the United States in a court of law could seriously believe they could actually remain in office, or would have any moral authority to lead.
They are declaring a coup....and the penalty for this act is.....?
I did not know that - thanks for the info!
What, is he claiming some sort of double jeopardy relief? So what if all those in the chain screwed the pooch. Is he Constitutionally eligible or not? ANSWER THE QUESTION, Barry!
I guess the US Attorney never heard of checks and balances..lets see
Door #1 soap box
Door #2 ballot box
Door #3 Jury Box
Door #4 Ammo Box
So if they refuse to listen to the soap box and cheat at the ballot box, then if jury box is not available, that kinda reduces the options? As Forest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.
Isn't that what Michelle was suppose to have said in the AIP tape....?
Clearing the Smoke on Obamas Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigators June 10 Report
"The Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an original birth certificate on record.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before the local registrar of the district.
It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parents signature to a form and mail it in.
In addition, if a claim was made that neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate. (Section 57-8&9)
.... there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.
BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a Delayed Certificate could be filed, which required that a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates, which evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.
The statute provided that the probative value of a delayed or altered certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.
(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.)
In 1955 the secretary of the Territory was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office §338-41 [in 1961]).
In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of original birth certificate. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
In this way state policies and procedures accommodate even children born out of State (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an original birth certificate on record.
That is the admission that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
John Tyler (b March 29, 1790), the tenth President, was the first President actually born in the United States.
Sadly, not elligible for any VA teeth pulling.
Wheee. Should have some pliers around here somewhere.
I hope everyone understands the gravity of this. Some pretty boys and girls with law degrees have just stated that it doesn’t matter if Obama is eligible or not, he’s in and there’s not a GD thing we can do about it.
The pleading sounds like just the sort of democrat approach the affirmative action fraud-in-chief would raise: “You didn’t catch me in my fraud in time so now I’m legitimate.” And ya know what, he has millions of kneepad sycophants who will delight in that criminality, a few of whom work FR regularly on his behalf, lying, dissembling, and stirring up as much confusion and misdirection as they can for their obamessiah.
Anyone getting the impression they might be getting a little desprate?
I hoep the young lady and young man who busted ACORN and Orly Taitz will motivate more people to do what they have done.
Obama *IS* ACORN
Let's see...a thief admits to embezzling from a bank, but says he can continue to do so because he wasn't caught the first time.....makes sense to me.....NOT
If I were Obama's lawyers---who for some unexplained reason are paid by American taxpayers---I would be careful what they said in court this September 2009, because what they say today will be thrown back in their faces when the 2010 presidential primaries begin in 2011, when Obama will have to prove over again that he is eligible to run for President of the United States.
Well what’ll know. They say and wala! Issue over!
Wow, it took 10 men. Thanks for the info!
I’m reminded of the scene in Animal House when Belushi yells “Over? It ain’t over till we SAY it’s over!”
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.