Judge tosses out Army captain's complaint questioning president's birth; Orly Taitz on notice

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/841419.html ^

[vikk]

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land today tossed out a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.

Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever files a similar “frivolous” lawsuit in his court.

“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

Rhodes, who filed her complaint Sept. 4 in the Columbus Division of U.S. District Court, argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant.

“This plaintiff cannot in good conscience obey orders originating from a chain of command from this merely de facto president,” Rhodes’ complaint states. “This plaintiff cannot be lawfully compelled to obey this de facto president’s orders.”

In his order, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a “grueling” primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign.

“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,” Land says.

The judge adds that Congress hasn’t started impeachment proceedings against Obama, appears satisfied that he can hold the office and has rejected the suggestion he isn’t.

[grey_whiskers]

Nice strawman, troll.

[The Anti-One]

"What happened to my America?"

We allowed idiots to sit on the bench.

[The Pack Knight]

The Federal Rules of Evidence are statutory law. They were enacted by Congress in 1975, and are codified in the Appendix to Title 28 of the United States Code.

There are no rules of evidence in the Constitution, other than things like the requirement for two witnesses to convict someone for treason, the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment, and the Self-Incrimination Clause in the 5th Amendment. The Constitution sets forth the qualifications for service as President of the United States, but is silent on how and to what standard those qualifications or the lack thereof are to be proven and on how any disputes over an individual's qualifications are to be resolved.

[The Pack Knight]

Where does she get the idea that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born if his father was a British subject? I guess she’s never bothered to read the 14th Amendment, either.

[OldDeckHand]

"Where does she get the idea that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born if his father was a British subject? I guess she’s never bothered to read the 14th Amendment, either."

Hey, give her a break. There are 27 of them. I'm guessing she's still in the single digits. She'll get there, eventually.

[The Pack Knight]

And I'll actually confess that I wasn't familiar with the case law surrounding the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. I knew about the blurb in the Slaughter House Cases, but I generally wrote that off as dicta. For that matter, it's dicta in what I consider one of the most poorly reasoned opinions in the history of the Supreme Court - worse than Roe and rivaling even Swift v. Tyson.

It seemed rather cut-and-dry to me that anyone born in the United States to parents here legally, not part of a diplomatic mission, and (perhaps) not here simply as tourists were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and, therefore, citizens under the 14th Amendment. Certainly someone whose mother is a US citizen ought to qualify, and I'm not aware of anyone who is disputing that Obama's mother's citizenship.

Yeah, maybe he wasn't actually born in the United States, and that would certainly be a problem. However, the brief here argued that it didn't matter where he was born, which seems absurd.

I don't want to write off the issue of Obama's birthright citizenship, since some of his actions regarding that matter have been questionable. Yahoos like Orly Taitz certainly aren't lending any credibility to that cause, however.